What you really mean is, "All we hyper-conservatives have to do is beat the mainline, Ronald Reagan conservatives.
That would be a disaster, again.
Winning the general is everything. Nominating a candidate who cannot win the general is idiocy.
Has not Tea Party favorites Sharon Angle and the O'Donnel loon from Maryland ("I am not a witch") been nominated, Harry Reid would be gone and we would have another seat in the HOR.
Remember, Dem's want us to nominate the far-far-right, so they can be defeated in the General!
No one can be more appealing than the most popular Governor in America, a person that you seem willing to concede can win the GOP primary along with other GOP primary winners such as HW Bush, Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, Ford, and John McCain.
Palin is a uniter, not a divider, you do not consistently run in the 80 to 93% approval ratings as a Governor, unless you can reach all the people.
Your liberal agenda is a strange one for freerepublic.
What does that mean? What makes some a hyper-conservative, and what makes one a "mainline, Ronald Reagan conservative?"
I'm amazed that some don't recognize the very rhetoric being used against Palin was also used against Reagan.
IMO, trying to create daylight between RR and what you call "hyper-conservatives," is flawed in the premise.
Like in 2008?