she has her unhired unpaid attack dogs in every corner of the internet.”
Probably true.
But these attack dogs do not result in a net positive gain in voters. In fact, they probably turn off as many activists as they turn on, or more.
Palin is great; but her condescending, cocky, and downright mean supporters do her campaign real harm.
I’d be eager to hear from anyone here at FR who has turned the corner positively on Palin because of her attack dogs here. Any testimonies in that regard? Anyone out there who was neutral or anti-Palin, but is now pro-Palin because of the FR attack dogs?
Alternatively, what about the opposite? Anyone out there who was formerly pro Palin, but is now thinking, “I don’t want her supporters any closer to the actual workings of government than Ron Paul’s supporters”?
Just curious to see (anecdotally) which group seems to be larger, at least here among FR activists.
(As for me, not that it matters, I just want the GOP to put forth a candidate who can defeat obama, immediately repeal obamacare, and then pretty well shut up and go away and let the private sector heal the economy....and quietly appoint good judges....)
It has not been about gaining support, it is about destroying the people and the myths that derailed her image in 2008. Gaining support is the second step.