Palin breaks the mold of what we have come to accept as a typical politician, and that is why her popularity continues to grow.

later1

What do you think of the conventional wisdom that says “The right is more disciplined” than the left. Basically the argument says that in the Republican Party, Reagan’s rule that you DON’T criticize a fellow Republican publicly has been taken to heart. That essentially, once there is a nominee, everyone falls into line like a “good soldier”, sets differences aside, and all pull together for the common good. Do you think that was happening during the 2008 election? Are Republicans really better than Democrats at that? If that conventional wisdom is true, Does Ms. Palin threaten that discipline?

There are no blanket veiws with either party, nor is there a fine line with either side. With the GOP you have moderates, right and far-right. With the Dems you have moderates, left and far-left.

Maybe that slipped your mind momentarily, because I am pretty sure you already knew this.

Sorry, I just could resist point out what “checks and balances” normally means in the context of federal government after your snide “…something else liberals just don’t get” cheap shot. It was not very nice of me.
Your point that Ms. Palin has pointed out on many occasions that she is NOT in lockstep with the McCain camp, and was never asked to be, is a good one. I am just pointing out that the tune has changed quite a bit with regard to Senator McCain and how he is treated. I wonder if everyone would be talking about what a RINO he is if he and Palin had won the white house in 2008. (I think not)

My dream ticket? Keyes and Palin 2012.

Where in my comment did I refer to checks and balances as it applies to the federal government? Where?

There are checks and balances in business, there are checks and balances in schools, there are checks and balances in just about every aspect of life.

Now, the intelligent person would know exactly what I am talking about. But, to make it easy on you, I will elaborate.

Two people (or beliefs) with some opposing views have a better ability to keep each other honest, and in check, than two people with the same views. Now, so you don’t twist the “honesty” part, I am referring to an instance were one person can lead the other person to think, or consider, something that they may or may not have thought, or considered, otherwise.

Do you understand, or do I have to simplify it more?

Natalie:
I see that the conservative base is calling Senator McCain a RINO, I was just not seeing it during the campaign. Maybe everyone was just thinking “ok, he is a RINO, but there is NO WAY I can vote for the liberal, and he did bring in Sarah, so OK I will vote for McCain”.
Here are some other Palin quotes from 2008:
“Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve chosen the right man.” (refering to the McCain as the right man to lead the Republican Party at the 2008 convention)”

“…we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant’s heart. Now, no leader in America has shown these qualities so clearly or present so clear a threat to business as usual in Washington as Senator John S. McCain”

It just doesn’t sound to me like she thinks he is a RINO. It sounds to me like a change of tune.

It’s called checks-and balances…something else liberals just don’t get.

I don’t think I would say that the McCain campaign duped Palin. I think that McCain is a RINO but I would still classify him as a “Great American.” He just happens to be a “Great American” who has views that differ a great deal from mine. I honestly think that this is something that liberals really don’t get about conservatives. We can disagree, as a collective, with a politician, without having hate for that person. It is the policies that we take issue with, not the personality. McCain is a war hero, no one can take that from him. I salute him and thank him for his sacrifice.

If Palin thought McCain was a RINO and still agreed to run with him, how does that lead you to claim that she must have been duped? If Palin is a “Great American” and wanted to lend “her good name” for the betterment of our country, how can you take issue with that? I would argue that if Palin thought McCain to be a RINO and refused his nomination, then she would have been doing a disservice to her fellow Americans. The VP does hold council with the POTUS. At least in that capacity she would have a conservative voice in the White House, had the pair been successful. Many, many conservatives voted McCain, simply because of the possibility of having that conservative voice in the WH.

But I’m with you…I can’t wait to read the book. I pre-ordered from http://www.booksamillion.com.