Posted on 10/15/2011 1:21:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
She has always been known as a Tea Party darling as well as a staunch Republican.
But now Sarah Palin has nailed her political colours to the mast and changed her Facebook profile from Republican to 'Conservative'.
The move on the 'political views' section of her page has left political commentators struggling to decipher what the the former Alaska governor is trying to say.
(GRAPHIC AT LINK)
One long-time blogger and Palin supporter wrote: 'I suppose one could draw a multitude of conclusions regarding this status change.
'I know that I certainly have. You can be certain that any move Sarah Palin makes has been well thought out and is with purpose.
'Could she possibly be sending a message to the RNC that they need to strengthen the conservative planks of the Republican party.
'Perhaps her promise of 'sudden and relentless reform' as addressed in her Indianola speech and more recently in her October 7th St. Louis speech is a sign that as in the past, neither party is safe from her scrunity.
'One thing is for sure, time will tell.'
The news comes as polls continued to indicate that Republicans aren’t sold on Mitt Romney and they’ve been looking for other presidential candidates.
At least eight other Republicans have seen their standings soar in GOP primary surveys since the beginning of the year.....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
When one is attacked, we’re all attacked.
We all hang together or we all hang seperately.
-—Ben Franklin
CAIN 2012
BS. If you supported her, it means you wanted someone like her to be president. If you wanted her to be president, you must have believed in her capacity to make good decisions. Yet now, when she makes a decision you don't like, you throw her so far under the bus you accuse her of being this fundamentally evil person, just in it to milk supporters, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Rather a sudden and dramatic transformation from the person whose decisions you say you trusted well enough to be President.
So really you never did support her. What you supported was an idea in your own head you held about her, but you didn't support her, as herself. You may have even given time and money to that idea in your head, but it wasn't really for her. Projections are always so disappointing, aren't they. But you can't elect a projection to office. You have to elect real people. Sarah was never dishonest with us. She made her choice. It's not fair to respond to your personal disappointment by sliding into bitterness and slandering her with falsehoods about her motivation, and it doesn't help the conservative movement either.
People like you aren’t going to get people to like Palin. I didn’t know that she was milking it, until she announced that she wasn’t running. I trusted her decisions to be president before I realized she took advantage of her supporters. She misled her supporters. If people didn’t think she was running, why didn’t she announce in Iowa that she wasn’t going to run? Why did she have them wait another month? In her Iowa speech she attacked advisers on Fox News who were working with candidates, because they didn’t announce that. She had a bus tour. She changed foreign policy advisers. What was the point of “the Undefeated?” People wouldn’t have purchased the dvd or go to see in at the movies if they knew she wasn’t running. Palin took advantage of people thinking she was running for president, and that is why she waited until the very end to announce.
I’m all for dumping the Republican party. I will not vote for a RINO. Period.
I don't know about that. I've been pretty successful getting people to like her, because unlike you, all I really have to do is let them get to know the real her.
Now help me out here. I'm pretty good with grammar & such, but I cannot tell the tail from the nose in this next line of yours:
If people didn’t think she was running, why didn’t she announce in Iowa that she wasn’t going to run?
You’ve got a triple negative going there, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. My best guess is that you think she was laying down heavy evidence she intended to run. And if that is your point, guess what? I agree with you. That’s the message we all were getting from her.
But here’s your problem. You go further than the evidence. Much further. You look into the secret places of her very soul and claim to see what none of us mere mortals can see, that she didn’t really mean it, that she was just playing games with us. And at that point you cross over from mere speculation into slander.
Yes, it's a slander, because you've got no more evidence for your allegations than McGinniss had for his. I'm serious. You rattle off a series of facts showing she was giving real signs of running, and I agree with you that those were indicators of a serious intent to run. But you go off the tracks into McGinnissville because you utterly fail to show even the tiniest shred of evidence that during that period she knew, with certainty, she would not run. Got pictures? No. Got emails? No. Got credible testimony from anyone in a position to know her innermost thoughts? Um, No. Maybe a special revelation from on high? Didn’t think so.
So you have no evidence for your belief she never really meant to run. Zip. Zero. Nada. And when you make an accusation that assaults the character of someone, with no supporting evidence, you have become a slanderer. Thems just the plain facts. It doesn't matter to me if you don't like me for saying it. Just strikes me as out of character for someone with your namesake to be defaming a fellow conservative with no cause whatsoever. Slander is no friend of conservatism.
Look, what prevents you from just giving her the benefit of the doubt? She obviously was acting like someone who meant to run. We both agree on that. But as neither you nor I have any evidence she meant otherwise, what is so hard about just believing her own testimony, that coming down to the wire, there were genuine, sincere reasons she could not take that last step, a step she very much wanted to take? Have you never been there before, where you really meant to do something, but when it came the time and place to do it, things weren't as you had originally believed, and you had to back off?
I've been there many times. That's perhaps why I was not so shocked when she finally made her decision October 5th. I was listening to her very closely, and she was measuring her words very carefully, like I myself would do when my children wanted something very badly, but I was unsure myself whether I could make it happen. I would try to keep their hope alive, with a serious hope of my own it would work out, yet never making a promise that I might later have to break. Sarah is like that. She cares about her promises. She hates to break them, and she's lived a life that proves that about her. It is one of the main reason I liked, and still like, who she really is.
But apparently some of us didn't get the memo. You do know she gave up about 10 million in potential income to keep herself available for the race, don't you? Yep, she was offered a second season with her Alaska show, and turned it down. That really doesn't sound like someone who's "milking it," now does it. That sounds like someone who totally believed she was going to run. That's what the on-the-record evidence suggests, and you have as much as admitted it. Why you want to take your bitterness out on her, and now on me, is between you and God, but it doesn't help the movement. Just something to think about.
I am disappointed she didn’t change it to “Tea Party.”
Sarah Palin isn’t registered with the Tea Party for the same reason the rest of us aren’t.
As unpopular as Obama is, the Republican party remains quite unpopular as well. I believe in a three-way race, it is quite possible for Palin to win. Her message would appeal to many in both parties, including the independents. Running against the “establishment elites” is a winning strategy.
LOL
If people didn’t think she was running, why didn’t she announce in Iowa that she wasn’t going to run?
“You’ve got a triple negative going there, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. My best guess is that you think she was laying down heavy evidence she intended to run. And if that is your point, guess what? I agree with you. That’s the message we all were getting from her.”
I was saying that people said that I should have known she wasn’t running or also Palin didn’t lead me to think she was running for president. If that is true, why couldn’t she have said it in September that she wasn’t running.
“Why you want to take your bitterness out on her, and now on me, is between you and God, but it doesn’t help the movement. Just something to think about.”
You have been attacking me. I haven’t slandered her like Joe McGinniss has. I’ve given a description of how she handled herself the past year. I know you wrote a lot, and I read it. There’s a lot of evidence that she milked it, and I feel that she hurt the candidates in the primary by not announcing sooner.
Nothing.
You can spin this any way to Sunday, but there is no way Palin is going to win a three-way race. Her message resonates with much of the conservative base, but little beyond that. The support she`ll pull..likely in the 20% range... will come directly from a split in the GOP vote and give Obama not only a win but a landslide.
Obama is going to be very difficult to take down next year, regardless of the current lumps he`s taking in job approval polls now. The possibility of beating him and averting four more miserable years of this disaster must not be squandered by an exercise in clear futility.
You can spin this any way to Sunday, but there is no way Palin is going to win a three-way race. Her message resonates with much of the conservative base, but little beyond that. The support she`ll pull..likely in the 20% range... will come directly from a split in the GOP vote and give Obama not only a win but a landslide.
Obama is going to be very difficult to take down next year, regardless of the current lumps he`s taking in job approval polls now. The possibility of beating him and averting four more miserable years of this disaster must not be squandered by an exercise in clear futility.
So, if you stay home if Romney is the nominee, you`ll have been successfully demoralized, just as the Left hopes. You`re really OK with Obama making a SCOTUS selection in his next term, knowing full well it may affect the court`s conservative wing?
So if I’m getting what you’re saying, you’re making this harder than it should be because other people are telling you that you should have known better than to believe her because she didn’t give clues she was running. But as we have already agreed, Palin did give many substantial clues she was running. I can’t argue with the people who were arguing with you, because right now, this is just between you and me. But I think the simple, honest answer is that yes, she really was running, in her own mind, right up till the last minute. That’s why the clues were there. They were telling us what she was really thinking. She really meant to run.
You have been attacking me. I haven’t slandered her like Joe McGinniss has. I’ve given a description of how she handled herself the past year.
I am sorry you think I am attacking you, but I will defend the honor and good character of Sarah Palin against all comers, whether from outside the camp of the conservative faithful or from within. She did nothing, repeat, nothing to deserve this kind of treatment. If you perceive it as an attack on you, I suggest you adjust your antennae, because you are getting the wrong signal.
Try to understand something. I have a particular sensitivity to slander. Some years ago, I had a debate with a neighbor about their garbage dumpster and the junk it was routinely spewing into my yard. The conflict escalated to where they began to slander me in the most horrendous way possible, heart-sickening, McGinniss-class rumors, totally without basis in fact. I didn’t pursue it in court, because I am by nature a turn-the-other-cheek guy, and I felt the matter would dissipate more efficiently if I just focused on winning the battle over the dumpster, which, by God’s grace, I did. But it definitely gave me some insight to what it is like to enter the unreal world of people making up the most amazing nonsense about you, simply because they are trying to get a tactical advantage over you.
So when people make things up about Sarah that denigrate her character, I demand strict proof of the charges. Your description of her behavior over the last year contains nothing that proves she meant to mislead. Nothing at all. I know all the alleged “proofs” on your list, and many more, as I have engaged many others who have similarly slandered Palin right here on FR. Of all the allegations made, there is no actual proof, only speculation and innuendo, the unjustified drawing of reputation-damaging inferences from a thin and sometimes non-existent set of facts.
Bottom line, unless you are God, you don’t know and can’t know she was misleading anyone. There are no secret recordings, no pictures or videos of her meeting with the enemy, no emails where she’s snickering about fooling those idiot supporters of hers. There is no real evidence of your allegation. None. And as your allegation is both defamatory of her character, and made without evidence, it is identical to the McGinniss slanders.
So, while I intend no personal attack on you, I will call it as I see it. You are putting out an explanation of why she decided not to run that relies on an unproven and defamatory theory of her character. That’s bad of you to do. It just is. It hurts her, and it hurts the conservative movement, for no good reason, and I will continue to call it out whenever I see it happen. It’s nothing personal. It’s just something I can’t not do. I hope you understand.
Change is afoot.
When will FreeRepublic change its sidebar key words from palin and sarahpalin to cain and hermancain?
“She changes **one** word on her Facebook page and it’s international news? “
Hope it means she is going to set up a conservative shop on the Third Ave. I know she would not have zilch of a chance with the two wings of the same bird of prey controlling the ‘debates’. Have to get started sometime. Losing the first time is not the worse thing, losing every time is.
theres a price to pay. the Northeastern culturaly liberal elite Republicans need some kind of punishment for the way they treat regular working people.
Foot stomp to be followed by a noticeably flatulent “splat” sound.
The “punishment” that needs to be meted out is to Obama. But, hey... why should the Republicans alter their penchant for circular firing squads? It`s certainly fun entertainment for the enemy party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.