This is why she didn't unload on the party elites that sabotaged her candidacy and expected to use her and then dump her. She didn't want to destructively divide the party, just nudge it toward the conservative, and free market capitalism.
With Sarah in the running, this infighting would be worse, not better, and anyone she endorses will have the sky fall on them, from both sides.
HOW to get these answers and/or how to get anyone to care.
I believe Sarah is trying to get the average Republican to force these questions by motivating individuals to make up their own minds by her NOT being specific, but always talking about the issues and tactics of the candidates, but endorsing none.
Back on for just a minute —
Here’s the fatal flaw in Palin’s analysis:
Her premise is (and you also identified this) that if people just knew more of the dirt on Romney, they wouldn’t vote for them. And if people just knew more of the good stuff on Newt, and all the bad stuff was debuned, they would vote for Newt.
The reality is that a large percentage of the GOP base — as amply demonstrated on thread after thread on FR — simply does not give a damn about either Romney or Gingrich’s or anyone else’s record.
They are 100% focused on figuring out who, in their best estimation, can defeat Obama.
Fundamentally, this is about nothing more than a disagreement on the issue of who, Romney or Gingrich, is most likely to defeat Obama.
The GOP elites could criticize or praise Romney or Gingrich, or both of them at the same time, to high heaven and it wouldn’t make a hill-of-beans worth of difference to the grassroots.
The only way “negative stuff” impacts the grassroots at this point is if it makes the candidate look as though he would have a tougher time defeating Obama.
All further vetting is going to accomplish is giving the grassroots more information on which to decide which of these two men is more likely to defeat Obama.
All this stuff about Newt and Reagan — in my view, if it had a negative impact on Newt’s campaign, it won’t be because most conservatives conclude that Newt was “an opponent of Reagan,” the strawman Palin sets up. They’ll know that’s hogwash. But the fact that he made a speech against Ronald Reagan that sounded just like the speech Harry Reid made against George Bush and the Iraqi War could make people think “good grief, how will we get this man elected?”
There is thread after thread on FR about all the foibles of Newt that freepers “don’t care about.” That’s basically the zeitgeist in a nutshell, and it works **against** the impact of “negatives” on ALL candidates.
Again, the more that comes out about these guys, the more voters evaluate it SOLELY in terms of “how does this item affect this candidate’s electability?” End of discussion.
No one is going to get Gingrich elected by claiming he’s great and all the Bad Newt stuff is baloney. They have to convince people that he can defeat Obama more easily than Romney can defeat Obama.
So if Romney’s dirt is not viewed by the grassroots as affecting his electability, or vice versa, Newt’s is, whatever comes out from here on out will have no political meaning.
debuned = debunked
piffle