I think a lot of us held our tongue. Her heart was in the right place and she was right on principles, but it was obvious that this was going to be a tough challenge.
I don't know. I'm much more cynical than that. Conservatism is big enough to be a pretty good business. People sell books, go on TV, talk on the radio. It's a pretty good gig, if that's what you want to do. And maybe it serves a purpose. But I'm sure it attracts opportunists.
I just don't take people seeking office at face value. The burden of proof is on them. I didn't really care about witchcraft or masturbation. But I saw a pattern of someone who wants to be in front of a camera. She's got the talking points down, and maybe would have even backed it up, but I'm just saying my spider senses would have been tingling on that one. I'd worry about having her represent us. I'm hoping she doesn't get another chance. Judgemental? Yes. I just get the feeling she's in it for the attention and the money. If Palin is the Beatles, she's The Monkees.
I have a term for such people. It's meant for men or women, so let's not get into a victim-mysogyny thing, but I call them AWs (attention whores.) She seems like one to me.
Maybe I'm dead wrong. Maybe it's all sincere. OK. I also wasn't convinced that she really knew what she was talking about. To me, she was somewhere between Sean Hannity and a rock. That 1st amendment thing was a classic example.
Supporters squawked that she was correct on the point, but the real point is that she lost the argument. She didn't persuade. She had a set-up line but no punch-line.
And anyway, she and her supporters are wrong about "separation of church and state." You have to recognize the powers granted in Article 3 of the Constitution. The fact is you can't just read the Constitution. You have to know a couple centuries' worth of SCOTUS decisions or else you don't know what the LAW actually is. Anyone thinking they can hold this government to just the bullet points in Article 1, Sec. 8 are tilting at windmills.
But I digress. The truth is, I live in NJ, so there was nothing I could do about it anyway. And anytime mania hits Free Republic, like, say, back in the Elian Gonzalez days, there's no sense arguing about it.
I bear in mind that one thing leads to another, and we never know in advance how that is going to play out. Seemingly good things can trigger bad ones, and vice versa. Most of it is, thankfully, out of my control, and so I am a witness, an extra without a speaking role.
There's a bothersome tendency towards glorification and pop-star treatment in our ranks, without a healthy skepticism. I'm not saying everyone needs to see through my dark glasses, but a little reserve would be nice. Trust but VERIFY. And ask for better.
Cheers on a good night. Sorry to ramble.
The 1st amendment thing was terrible politics. Even if she had communicated her point effectively, is that going to win over DE voters? Is that a pressing issue there? The winning issues this year were fiscal issues. Run against PORKULUS, Bail-outs, Obamacare. With those issues she MIGHT have had a chance. Although, didn't she run there a couple of times already?
OK. I'm done. Thanks.