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.
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.