I like DeMint. I think he’s a much better communicator than Palin, and so I like his chances in a general better than hers. But, I think he would lose too. He’s made some controversial remarks about gays and Christianity which would hurt him with the necessary independent vote. “Extreme” would be the meme du jour on the nightly news, even though their president is a marxist.
RE: Palin. I got to be honest - I LOVE her, and she would be a monumental upgrade to Obama, but she would lose big in an election to him. She is on the right side of every issue and has great instincts. I do not think she’s an idiot, but I don’t think she’s a rhodes scholar either. If you don’t know your crap backwards and forwards on every facet of government and foreign policy and you run for president - especially as a conservative woman, they hyenas in the media will feast on you, a la Katie Couric.
EVERYTHING you wrote about Palin is spot-on IMO.
The MSM has been able to define some of the more
notable conservatives such as Palin and Newt in
the eyes of the un-informed masses. They will, of
course, attempt to paint a negative picture of whomever
wins the GOP nomination. That is one of the reasons
I am interested in Daniels or someone like him. There
is an opportunity, however slight, for Daniels to
define himself before the cretins focus in on him.
But, if he doesn’t have the ‘fire in his belly’ it
won’t matter.
So did Reagan.
It's not like Katie's questions were that tough. Look at Palin's totally pathetic answer here:
KC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with? [besides Roe v Wade]
SP: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
Ouch. Total bafflegab, and lousy at that. Here I am, a mere guitar player, and I could rattle off a few cases, new and old, that I disagree with. How about Kelo? If you're a libertarian, how about Raich? If you like limited government, how about Wickard? Hell, if you want to be a little zany, how about Marbury? If you don't like Roe, how about subsequent rulings like Casey?
She had NOTHING. Is that too much to ask, that someone who wants to be president has at least the level of knowledge about the SCOTUS as a guitar player?
I'd like to see that same question asked in the GOP primary debates. It was a great question actually, and exposes not just someone's philosophy, but how much they actually understand about this government and its Constitution.