The problem with monomaniacally tearing down Palin (or anyone else, for that matter) is that it begs the question: Who would be better, and why?
Most rational people would concede that Palin has flaws. But then, everyone does.
I think there would be wide agreement here on FR that a primary job requirement of the next President would be to preside over a rational downsizing of the Federal Government—which will be done against the shrill screaming of all of the special interests who have bellied up to the trough of federal money.
Who’s shown the ability to stand up to the shrill screaming, and not only stay on message but to rhetorically swing back and connect a few haymakers in return?
Who’s been doing that on the national stage? Really doing it, not just lobbing a few softballs from the peanut gallery every once in a while, and generally being ignored by everybody on all sides?
I mean, besides Sarah Palin?
It appears to me to be an awfully, awfully short list. People wanting to be Presidential candidates need to be doing things to get on that list—if nothing else to give Palin some covering fire (to use a violent, uncivil metaphor). Because you absolutely, positively know that Palin’s going to give anybody else who sticks their head out of the political foxhole and starts firing for effect covering fire, too. (There I go again.)
We need a half-dozen high-profile Presidential wanna-be’s, all out there firing verbal artillery the way Palin has been doing. That is how we will know who’s serious about being the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012.
But the truth is that most of the Republican Presidential wannabes look to me to be just too danged intimidated by either the RNC Mandarins and/or by the MSM to fight the good fight.
We need “happy warriors” right now. The more, the merrier.
Very good!
Thanks filbert, we are agreed on Palin. Not flawless, but I see no one else standing in the breech.
Patton was a son of a bitch but his men followed him through hell because they knew whose side he was on.