The LSM and the Palin bashing bloggers are either too thick, blind or prejudiced to understand the reasoning behind Sarah Palin's various endorsements and treat the election results like some sort of tallying contest.
Conservatives4Palin have presented a great analysis of how her endorsements have done results wise and have taken to task those in the media who present a distorted view of various results e.g. CNN stating Palin went "0 for 2" when in fact it was 2 for 2 etc. Washington Posts Chris Cillizza on ABC's
"Top Line" also (as expected) made the same faulty analysis.
They, the biased media, all miss the point. If Palin had simply wished to run up an impressive score of winning candidates she could have simply endorsed candidates, like Rossi for example, in Washington, who stood the best chance of winning, or not endorsed any candidate who was not way out in front in the polls.
She made it outstandingly clear during her resignation speech that she would endorse candidates who she felt were standing on back to basics conservative principles and "If I die I die". If 100% of her endorsements failed to win but they presented to the American people a program of renewal for our country then that would be a principled stand worthy of someone of the highest consideration to lead America.
The leftist media can't get it through their collective heads that, with Palin, they are dealing with someone who puts principle above expediency. Of course Palin supporters would wish to see a 100% winning result for all her endorsements (and of course some have done very well) but we "Get it" because our thinking is conditioned by Palin to put what is right before self.
No comments:
Post a Comment