“So the only logical explanation for Palin’s bizarre “endorsement” of Gingrich is that she knows that he can’t win and that she is using him to create this false narrative of an evil “establishment” keeping the noble Tea Party down (explain to me again how Newt is remotely “Tea Party”?), like they somehow did in those Palin-induced Senate losses in Delaware and Nevada in 2010.”
I have to think about this. Could Sarah Palin be so devious?
And being a commentator on FOX news (called here at FR “FAUX” NEWS), isn’t Sarah Palin a member of both the Establishment and the hated Media Elites?
“Could Sarah Palin be so devious?”
Devious? Nah. Haven’t you heard - She’s irrelevant, she’s through, she’s going to fade away, she is yesterday’s news, she ought to stop weighing in, her endorsement isn’t beneficial, she should just hush up, she’s jumped the shark, she has no influence, blah, blah, blah.
Anyone who sums Palin up with “Palin-induced Senate losses in Delaware and Nevada in 2010” is either blind, a fool or both.