Search

by MojoPages

Share this article:
Print

Untwittered... former Palin "Twibe" leader steps down

by Joe Arnold

Posted on February 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Updated Sunday, Feb 7 at 2:49 AM

******

Updating and clarifying from a previous post about Grayson County's Lisa Graas, who quit as administrator of the Sarah Palin "Twibe" on Twitter after Palin endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race.

Graas says, yes she is stepping down, but is handing over the twitter feed "to a capable Palin supporter."

In an e-mail after the Rand Paul endorsement, Graas told me, "I tried to tell SarahPAC, but would they listen?  Nope."

"I'm a Reagan conservative before I'm a Palin fan,"  Graas continued, "and the same can be said for Kentucky.  Looks like Sarah Palin is lacking some common sense."
 

She also points out that, although I quoted her correctly in the previous post,

 "I've been sending almost daily communications to SarahPAC telling them about this race and begging them to call me. No one has called. I've been working for Sarah Palin since September of 2008 almost daily, in horrible pain, and can't get a ten-minute phone call from a staffer? It doesn't matter if it's not true. I'm done. It doesn't matter anymore. I'm done. They can't call me??? I'm done."

I misattributed the source, which was the texas4palin blog.

Graas declined to be interviewed on camera, but says:

"... the Republican Party is in a serious period of transition.  It's important to understand that the actions that we Republicans take now do shape what the next Republican Party platform will look like. That is the battle as I see it whether anyone else consciously realizes that or not."

Share this article:
Print

To add a comment, please register or login.

Leave your comment
1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

HTML is not allowed.

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

rich34 said on February 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Oh, yes. Now she's a "Reagan Republican?" I wonder if she realizes Reagan spoke of Pro-Life but, didn't act like it when he had the power in California? http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ron...n_Abortion.htm I also wonder if she's aware that Reagan appointed a Pro-Choice Judge in Sandra Day O'Connor? And what about Reagan Appointee Antonin Scalia on Rand Paul's opinion of States having control of Abortion? Or if she's aware of this Ronald Reagan quote: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." If she reads this she may very well decide that she's no longer a Reagan republican beause in reality if you read the real history, Reagan, philosophically speaking, is much closer to that of Ron and Rand Paul than any of today's crop of RHINO republicans. In fact Goldwater paved the way for Ronald Reagan, who's views are very similar to both Ron and Rand Paul.

angelatc said on February 7, 2010 at 6:32 PM

You know, it was easy for me to accept that Graas didn't agree with Rand Paul's pro-life position until I discovered that Palin shares Paul's point of view, in that both agree that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Knowing that makes it appear that her blog commentary certainly isn't cemented in logic, which begs the question,"Whose payroll is she on?" And why is she worthy of WHAS media coverage, anyway?

marieacole said on February 8, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Being a Reagan Republican doesn't mean that everything President Reagan did in his entire lifetime is faultless. We stand for smaller government, the right to life as our God given right sustained by the Constitution of the United States, strong national defense, and more that libertarians (with a lower-case l) stand for. Libertarians (with an upper-case L) look for ways to allow the minority to rule the majority. They support states' rights issues - to the point of Ron Paul's own Sanctity of Life Act which would have nullified the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban as it sent the issue of abortion to the states. Ms. Graas is a fine person and a fine American, and just because your view of her candidate - and mine, by the way - is different from hers, you have no right to attempt to smear her good name in this manner.

marieacole said on February 8, 2010 at 12:07 AM

I think you may be protesting so loudly because you know that she's right about true Republicans. Any Libertarian who runs for office as a Republican because he knows he can't win running as a third-party candidate is nothing other than a RINO. Being a conservative has nothing at all to do with the "if it feels good, do it" attitude of Libertarians like Rand Paul and his father, Ron.

cindylou said on February 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM

One is either for or against the killing of the innocent unborn. To say it's the problem of the State's or the Federal Gov't is purely cowardly. We need leaders that will stand up and and get a "Right to Life" amendment. 50 million abortions in the past 16 years is horrendous. At this rate the Muslims will wipe us out by attrition in 40 to 50 years. Welcome to reality. You people want to disparage anyone that takes a stand against this murder. You all make me sick!

tunkashila said on February 8, 2010 at 12:16 AM

I'm going to tell the two of you something your fathers should have told you a while ago. The only thing you leave this life with is your character. What you do with your life determines what your character is. Lisa has more character in her right little finger than apparantly either of you combined and frankly I find yours' offensive. Let me just guess....Campaign for Liberty types? Rand Paulers? Libertarians? Well, my understanding is that your "right" to "be" stops at the point where another is injured. You just crossed it. Lisa's decision is extremely personal, private, and not without serious contemplation. Your bashing and ridicule is juvenile at best, mean spirited at worse. Her principles are not for you to question. Her beef is with Palin, cretins, not with anyone else your twisted freak minds want to make it in to. That's all I'm going to say about that because her decision is NYFB! Get it? Got it? Good! You two are supreme "Liberty" hypocrites. Get lost and grow up.

kentuckyblessin said on February 8, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Ronald Reagan Abortion the Conscience of the Nation (1983) * Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. * The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation. cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. * If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. * The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? There is more but space is limited Lisa knows this !!

maxcaspermags said on February 8, 2010 at 12:29 AM

I find your attack on Grass to be childish and immature in nature. Typical behavior observed when feeling beaten and want to come back with personal attacks. Let me first and foremost explain to you that THIS IS AMERICA...WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ..that doesn't mean you have to agree with what is being said but it does mean that she and everyone else has the right to express their views. When expressing views, however, it would easier to understand if they were expressed in mature, intelligent form instead of the tripe and attacks that I have seen. I too, am sickened by those that seem to think we can justify ending a life so easily. It goes against everything I hold dear to my hear, being a Catholic, woman and a nurse. Attacking someone's decision to stop endorsing a particular candidate whether they are running or not is a personal choice and and nothing but respect for the right to do so should be shown. No wonder society is in the shape that its in these days!

kentuckyblessin said on February 8, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Lisa stands for the Republican plank ..Rand Paul nor Sarah Palin believes in the true nature of the Republican party nor do either of you. You trout liberty. You don't have a clue what it means. You say this and that and really all you are saying or doing is what you have been taught by your cult leader Ron Paul. Rand Paul himself said he could not win in Kentucky as a Libertarian so he wanted to get elected in able to change the party. Go form your own party and take Rand Paul with you we don't want him , you or his father. Lisa, deserves to be acknowledged because she took action, what have you done ? You speak vile hatefulness about someone you know NOTHING about. Go play with someone that wants to play with you ,we don't have time we need to save this country from loons like you and your buddies the Pauls, Obama and Palin!!

traysonmysteps said on February 8, 2010 at 3:30 AM

Many of you seem willing to claim she has freedom of speech, while it is she who is intentionally putting herself in the news. Then you complain if anyone disagrees? You are tyrants! You are shoving your opinions down other people's throats, and then screaming en masse if anyone objects. How is that freedom?

angelatc said on February 8, 2010 at 8:21 AM

I don't believe the assertion that the Sanctity Of Life Act would overturn the partial birth abortion ban (which, in reality, is only 1 rarely-used method of late term abortion anyway. Others are still legal, and abortion is still legal up until the time of delivery. ) . Roe v Wade took the right to outlaw abortion away from the states but it also removed a myriad of federal abortion regulations, which indicates that Grass is simply wrong when she spouts that. theory as fact Additionally, the Sanctity of Life Act would enable the states to treat an abortion as a murder, while the Federal government would treat it as a civil rights violation. In other words, it would extend the exact same protections to all people, including the unborn, because there is no federal law against murder, either. Note that Norma McCorvey supports the Act. I support her.

graphic said on February 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM

......"no federal law against murder". Well, there you have it. All those who think taking the life of another is moral and decent, raise your hands...... Lisa Graas was acting on her own personal principles, because at the end of the day, there just aren't that many people we have to answer to except ourselves. Bill Johnson is lucky to have Ms. Graas in his corner.

tunkashila said on February 8, 2010 at 9:52 AM

(dark)angel: First degree murder is defined by federal and state laws, which vary by state, but generally define it as a killing which is deliberate and premeditated. Many states define first degree murder as a killing committed in connection with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, or involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child or a police officer), or certain weapons, particularly a gun. It is distinguished from second degree murder, which usually does not require premeditation, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill. Under federal law, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the defendant unlawfully killed [victim]; Second, the defendant killed [victim] with malice aforethought; Third, the killing was premeditated; and Fourth, the killing occur

tunkashila said on February 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Title 18 USC: `Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children `(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. `(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that-- `(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or `(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. `(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child. So, (dark)angel, there are federal laws against murder. Title 18 recognizes the personhood of the unborn. To kill the unborn is therefore murder. GWB signed the act in 2004. It needs to be expanded to include elective abortion.

nokooks said on February 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM

"When you can't defend your candidate with anything resembling sound logic, smear those who support the competition ..." That seems to be the only page remaining in the looney Ron -- er, um -- Rand Paul playbook (Sarah Palin had trouble telling them apart also). But what else can you realistically expect from a poseur who doesn't even comprehend that the God-given right to life is the very foundation upon which our U.S Constitution is framed, and is inseparable from it? It is silly to suggest that Graas should discount agreeing with Sarah 80-90% of the time in order to obtain the privilege of criticizing Rand's laughable incompetence.

tunkashila said on February 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM

(Dark)angel: Have you nothing further to add? So goeth Campaign for Liberty coolies. Try taking a course on Independant Thinking and Logic before showing your nether regions to the entire world!.

tunkashila said on February 12, 2010 at 9:44 AM

McCracken County GOP Senate Debate Internet live stream broadcast at 12:30 PM CST Saturday, Feb. 13 http://www.ustream.tv/channel/kentucky-us-senat...