Mr. Guardiano starts his post by stressing the point of his posts on Sarah Palin, his claim that she is not a conservative, yet in the second paragraph, he notes:
Fiorina, however, may well be a great conservative; I don’t know. I’m undecided in the California Senate race, though decidedly against the more liberal and dovish Tom Campbell.Wait a minute, if Carly Fiorina may be a great conservative, then how is Sarah's endorsement proof she is not a conservative? David Forsmark, who also responded on NewsReal, put it best: Mr. Guardiano muddies rather than clarifies the point, which itself was the whole point of his most recent blog post in the first place.
The rest of the post is devoted to his argument on Sarah not being a conservative, citing her endorsement of John McCain (the same argument that is repeatedly countered) and supposedly championing windfall profit taxes (is he talking about ACES?). He also repeats from his previous post this claim:
Palin’s problem, I think, is that unlike say, Ronald Reagan, she’s not a philosophically grounded conservative. She’s not well read and doesn’t appear to have thought very deeply about the great and pressing issues of our time.For someone who calls himself a one-time greatest fan and strongest advocate of Sarah Palin, that paragraph surprises me. I would've thought simply reading Sarah's Facebook notes would refute that claim. How did he come to his conclusion?
John Guardiano's definition of what a conservative is leaves much to be desired, as is his idea of what Sarah Palin is, politically and philosophically. The Sarah Palin she can be and the Sarah Palin she now is are one and the same, contrary to what he says. I wonder if he'll attempt another clarification soon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment