Pls! ...more like she pays her debts.
An endorsement with a wink.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of American's and their families, who are victims of rape, murder, robbery, ID theft, burglary, and drunk driving at the hands of illegal aliens.
She is aiding and abetting a known open borders, pro-amnesty politician.
Endorsement with a wink? That makes it worse because it means, “I will stand here and say things I don’t believe and don’t mean.” This is what leftys do - just SAY something and expect their supporters to know they don’t really mean it. This is business as usual but we are not in usual times any longer and it is time for people to say what they really mean and not “wink” at us or “double speak” or speak merely to be liked or politically correct. TRUTH is the only friend we have left and we better treat it with respect. I grew up with double-speak...such as, “Go ahead and go without me”, “I don’t want a birthday gift” etc. etc. Guilt was used and you were expected to try to discern the “real” desires of the person. Finally, I decided to start taking what people say at face value. If they said they did not want to go to the event, then okay, that was their wish. No babying them, no begging them...just “okay, I respect your wishes.” Eventually they learned to say what they really meant and communications became honest and simple.
The wink means that she knows everything she is saying about McCain is pure BS?
What debt? She almost got him elected president in spite of himself. She owes him nothing.
An endorsement with a wink.
The phrase Pro Deo et Patria comes to mind. It means, For God and Country. That is how our obligations should be ordered. Please notice the total lack of "payback to deeply entrenched political hacks" on that list.
So, what does Palin owe McCain, exactly?
What does it say about Palin if she sincerely endorses McCain ? And what does it say about Palin if she is insincere in her endorsement (in your words, "an endorsement with a wink")?
To agree with Palin's decision to campaign for, vouch for, and raise money for McCain, an honest person would agree that McCain is the best candidate. Only a dishonest person could endorse someone for expediency.
Which is it? Is she dishonest or is this bad judgment?
I don't live in Arizona, and don't know much about Hayworth.
What I do know is that John McCain has a long record of being an enemy of the First Amendment, has shown himself to be more than willing to curtail the personal freedoms of his fellow Americans, and evinces a perpetual ignorance of the free market and conservative values. Unless McCain is about to face the voters at election time, there isn't a proposed law or regulation he isn't in favor of.
I can't pretend to have insight into Palin's motivations, but would prefer to believe that she honestly thinks McCain is the best candidate. I can only say that either way, it isn't a good thing.