A couple of things wrong with that, one, no one has 'gone against everything they claim to support', that is one of those hyperbolic statements.
The most childish thing of all is that a politician can be a statesman without politics, if you want to lead the United States as President then you better be one of the top politicians in the world, if you are a conservative destined to become a "statesman" then you better be as good a politician as the greatest Republican politician of all time, Ronald Reagan.
If you want a "statesman" that isn't a "politician" then come to my house, or the house of the many freepers that are pure in their views but have no power, or results to show for it. To change the world, you have to win the politics to hold the office, and then you have to be a master politician to herd the cats that are competing with and are opposed to your goals, Palin did that well in Alaska.
Reagan accomplished what he did, not because he made the wrong decision and ended his "political" career somewhere along the way like an Alan Keyes, or a Ron Paul, or a Pat Buchannon, or the guy that never even got onto the local city council, Reagan got his "statesmen" like accomplishments because he won at "politics".
So, she supports McCain's politics and Establishment business as usual?
“Reagan got his “statesmen” like accomplishments because he won at “politics”.”
Orthogonal argument. Let me rephrase: if you side with your opposition because you are afraid of the media, you are a politician ONLY. Of course a statesman has to be good at politics, among other things. A politician, as opposed to a leader, merely has to be good at expediency. Romney is a politician. McCain is a politician. You would have us accept Palin as a leader? Show she's more.