Posted on 02/02/2012 9:51:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
She is keeping her options open while backing who she believes to be the best candidate at this time.........Just guessing at her motives here.
I support Newt right now, but I can't tell what will happen in the future just like nobody else can.
If he was to make a stupid statement on abortion or the second amendment, that would be it for me.
Don't think he will do that however, was just saying that hypothetically.
As I read somewhere years ago, "Leave yourself room to maneuver in uncharted waters, the future is always uncharted waters".
I seriously think you’re trying to read more into it than is there. Sarah Palin doesn’t mince words. However, when she speaks on FOX she’s under contract so she might not be able to come out and endorse anyone. And she might also feel it’s not her place to influence the process.
I hear all the time that important person X or Y should endorse “MY” candidate. If it turns out they endorse “NOT MY” candidate they’re suddenly the scum of the earth and should have stayed out.
If they endorse no one, they’re corporate shills, they’re hedging their bets, they’re (insert mind reading negative thought process of another person here), etc.
But again, she might mean exactly what she says...she wants the process to continue...if she lived in NC she’d vote for Newt...after FL she’d still vote for Newt. She’s been talking about the same issues for a long time and Newt best represents those at this point.
Cindie
Because if she openly throws her support behind Newt and he fails to overtake Romney, she loses credibility about her ability to rally peoples thoughts, minds and actions. She taints her ability to be perceived as a king maker. She's afraid to take a strong stand because it may come back and haunt her.
If she's only angling for a Newt win in the primary process, then she's misrepresented that she wants a competitive nomination process. She needs to say I want Newt to take this from Mitt.
I established my tagline two years ago as a challenge to us to make a Palin candidacy happen. Of course it is literally impossible to draft someone who takes the William T. Sherman position that "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve."But if we could have coalesced around Palin from the gitgo, before she ever made an announcement one way or the other about running, we could have created a super pac and affected her deliberations. Once we allowed the primary season to begin and the deadlines to loom, and Rick Perry and Herman Cain to enter the lists, we were doomed to the current situation. We find ourselves trying to settle on one of two candidates for whom, I venture, not one FReeper in ten would have advocated back in August or September.
Why did we need to lead her, if we think she should be our leader? McCain-Feingold. I have seen it credibly argued that Ronaldus Maximus himself could not have mounted a campaign for the presidency under the current rules. Governor Palin shouldn't have had to make that decision under the circumstances which the illegitimate, unconstitutional, "campaign finance reform" laws establish.Thanks, John McCain! Thanks, GWBush! Thanks, Sandra Day O'Connor! </sarcasm>
For those that seem to think I have been dumping on Palin and supporting Romney, this article is so right on, until it says Romney would be better than O, I am in no way sure that is true. (Note old tag line reactivated)
Social conservative understand all too well, it is you that lacks understanding. We hear this cr@p every election and everything keep getting worse.
Platforms mean nothing. Bob Dole was asked about the pro life plank in the platform, he replied, no one ever reads that thing.
I guess when the nation is overrun by illegals, and we are bankrupted by social welfare programs for the disadvantaged we can point to the SOCON agenda and feel good.
You can’t vote in a Christian Theocracy. That’s for you, your church and community/state to approach. I do think Roe V. Wade is an abominable ruling, and is bad law, as is recognizing homosexual marriage, etc.
Do you think it’s OK for the government to step in and redistribute your wealth in keeping with Christian principles?
Social Conservatism by itself is a trap for government. There’s no end to doing feel-good stuff with your and my money.
Things are getting worse, FRiend and will likely continue. We know how the chapter ends.
The secular Government needs to get it’s fiscal house in order, return and adhere to the secular Constitution. Christians need to get their own house in order and strengthen the things that remain. Do not conflate the Cross and the Flag...
{Do not conflate the Cross and the Flag...}
The Cross and flag were always joined, the failure to recognize this, is to the detriment of the country. This country is doomed to despotism, if we fail to take a moral stance, against the debauchery of the libertarian, and Marxists, If libertarians were the answer Goldwater would have won, instead he gave us the beginning of the end of the modern era.
I do believe God blessed this nation and it’s radical form of government, despite the deists and Masons and slavers intertwined from inception.
The Cross and the Flag have marched together more often than not over our brief American history. Our collective moral compass as a nation may roughly parallel Israel’s vacillation between keeping God’s covenants and wandering off into groves, idols and strange altars.
Don’t miss the exit on this turnpike; it’s not brightly signed...
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.