Her article makes me want to vote for Thomas Sowell, the person whom she relies on for the basis of her Facebook post.
do you just hate women? or is there a point to your PDS?
Can’t wait to troll around FR looking for Palin threads to crash...eh?
Professor Sowell is a national treasure, and shouldn't lower himself to the level of running for political office, IMO.
The problem we face is this: The people that get into politics, as a general rule, have no business in it. The people that should be in it, have no desire-- which is why they'd be perfect for it.
"Politician" should not be a career choice. It should be a temporary calling, and then discarded.
Hey, I've wanted to vote for Thomas Sowell since 1980, when I read his breakout book, Knowledge and DecisionsBut the fact is that he always belonged on the Supreme Court, where logic and lucid writing is the name of the game.
He was never going to make an independent run for the White House like Ronald Reagan, and he was already 50 in 1980. He's now 80, and the only possibility of his becoming president would have had to have been after winning the vice presidency after being thrust into national politics by a winning Republican presidential candidate. Much as Sarah Palin was.You need only review the post-Reagan Republican nominees - GHWB, Bob Dole, and GWB - to understand that none of them had the vision to nominate Sowell for VP. I didn't trouble to mention McCain; by then Sowell was way past the age to be considered, and in any case would never have run for POTUS after a term as VP by then. That's also true of the 2000 election, for that matter; apparently Sowell's health isn't much better than Cheney's, tho Sowell hasn't gone public with what his problem is specifically.Bottom line is that, much as we might wish otherwise, neither Ronald Reagan nor Thomas Sowell is available as a presidential candidate. We are stuck with the field we've got - and that means, in practical terms, that we need to coalesce around a solid conservative. After all, if there are multiple, sort of OK, candidates then the result can easily be the nomination of a John McCain, as we saw only two years ago.
My definition of a solid conservative is someone who wants to be Reagan and who favorably quotes Thomas Sowell. My criteria for a presidential nominee is that the candidate must be a current or recent governor (no senator has ever defeated a sitting president's bid for reelection) - and someone who is willing and able actually to fight, even when Big Journalism treats any attack on the incumbent president as a breach of decorum. When I apply those criteria to the current field, I see Palin as the best fit.
It is easy to exaggerate her "culpability" in the failure of the Republicans to regain the Senate majority; Palin did not endorse Sharron Angle until after Angle won the primary in Nevada. Afterward, she did - unlike Karl Rove's going into a public snit over the primary victory of Christine O'Donnell.
The bottom line is that the answer to Reagan's famous question,
Are you better off today than you were four years ago?will determine if Obama wins reelection. If that answer is "No," Obama will still make a lot of noise, but he will be defeated in November 2012. Always presuming that the Republican candidate asks that question. And if the Republican wins, will we be stuck with a McCain, or will we have someone who quotes Thomas Sowell and gives Ronald Reagan's portrait pride of place in the oval office?
"Sarah Palin: The Case for Extending All the Tax Cuts"
returns:
About 1,600,000 results (0.21 seconds)
just since she posted it 10 hours ago.