Whether she thought it would be a good thing or a bad thing for Newt, hard to tell in the end.
If she did see this coming, she should have gone ahead and endorsed Newt in order to get ahead of it, not talked about how she would vote for Newt in SC simply to "keep it going."
I realize she's hoping that by "keeping it going," Mittens will be exposed somehow. As she wrote:
Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this.
But the practical question is HOW to get these answers and/or how to get anyone to care.
The fact is that Romney has been running for years, and has gone through the process just like all the other candidates, including those who got bounced, and HE'S STILL STANDING.
That's the reality we're facing.
Yes, more time will lead to more scrutiny, and that may -- finally -- do the trick. But, as seen with Gingrich, not necessarily.
There are many who have decided they are okay with any and everything that Gingrich has stumbled over over the last decades -- and, in my view, few people who have reached that conclusion will change their mind. Even if they become re-disenchanted with Gingrich, they will hold their nose and vote for him.
The reality, however, is that there is a similar contingent that supports Romney! They know the same types of things about him that Gingrich supporters know about Gingrich -- and they are okay with it. They are willing to overlook these things, for whatever reason, and, again, in my view, very few who have reached that conclusion will change their mind.
And the state of debate is such that any and all vetting that is done of the candidates -- regardless of which one -- is SIMPLY and IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED by anyone supporting that candidate. It's all immediately branded as "lies," a conspiracy, a power play, the other side "trying to tell us who to vote for" -- and on and on. Yes, this happens in the camp of EVERY candidate at this point. This means that even legitimate, factually accurate knocks on a candidate get dismissed and ignored. This applies to Romney the same as everyone else.
See the impasse here?
It's truly hard to see a path forward that vets Romney in such a way as to dislodge his support from those who have already decided to overlook certain things. For Pete's sake, conservatives have been trying for years now to make something stick to him.
If Palin or anyone else can figure out how to further vet Romney in a way that works -- all the way to God's ears!
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.
You can bet your bottom dollar there are ‘back channel’ if not direct talks between SP and NG. It may be that they realize he’s controversial enough on his own and doesn’t need more controversy that an SP endorsement would bring. IF SP came out and endorsed him, it would take up several news cycles with the emphasis on her instead of him. They are both quite politically savvy, and I trust they know full well what they are doing.