I posted Reply # 96 before I read your comments.
See # 96. It applies to your comments also.
This is the very first time anywhere I’ve read comments suggesting Palin may be a lib (libertarian).
Maybe it’s a knee-jerk reaction to this thread and her ‘soft’ answer to gays at CPAC.
Conservatives will (and should) throw her under the bus if she goes libertarian on us.
Why is everyone assuming Palin was telling the SocCons to accept a pro-gay agenda?
I listened to what she said and I understand it to mean that she is not an exclusionist but I also took her words to mean that sure Goproud can come and debate and she doesn’t believe in boycotting because then the social conservatives won’t have a voice representing them (she said that much in her CBN interview) BUT that doesn’t mean they will win the debate.
I also took her statement about priorities to be more of a warning shot to the Goproud group by implying that their “issue” is not priority and they should drop it because our Country’s debt, jobs, freedom, national security etc.... is priority one.
Why do people assume she was telling the social cons to cool it? I took it that she was telling the Goproud group to cool it. I took her response to be that if Goproud thinks they are going to make their issue central to the 2012 campaign they are fools. Our country has bigger more important issues at hand than the gay issue of the month for GoProud.
I think her past statements strongly supporting the sancity of marriage, her living her values etc... support my interpretation much better than people thinking she was moving left. GoProud can try and claim her support but that is not what she said.
Yes, Palin has a libertarian streak but it is not on social issues. She does think those battles belong on the state level but she is still very much a social conservative.
Gosh, the poor woman cannot get a break. Everyone assumes the worst from her instead of looking at her record, past statements, views etc...