"The nation" as represented in authentic votes mainly consisting of media-led zomies -- a minority in America -- plus a cocktail of manufactured, ginned, gerrymandered, and downfight fraudulent votes. You believe in a nation of idiots, yet that actual "nation" represents such a minority, if it didn't cheat to win, it would LOSE.
You will ask me, "How do you know they're a 'minority' in America?" and my answer will be: "Because they have to cheat to win." The more liberal the politician, the more probable it is that a sizeable number of his "supporters" is pretend -- Al Franken and Barney Frank, anyone?
"The nation" that became "delirious" about "the new fresh face" that was somehow (gee, wonder how he pulled it off?) "able to deflect the baggage that came with him"????
There was zero deflecting. Zilch. What there was was a lot of stuff, noise, and flutter within the news media with the general conclusion that "there was no 'there' there," though none had investigated it. The MSM blithely moved on as if everyone fell for the "no 'there' there" line. But in reading consumer comments at MSM sites like LA Times, Yahoo, ABC, etc., I saw that most of the consumers were disgusted at Obama, liberals, and the MSM -- in that order.
Now, Palin and the cause of LIMITED GOVERNMENT may or may not have the popular appeal so many of us FReepers think they will, but one thing IS for sure: if you're relying on the MSM and polls to gage what "the nation" does and doesn't love and hate in politics, you're going to get a seriously distorted take.
Here's the reality: Liberals have to cheat to win because if they didn't, they'd lose.
Liberals are the minority.
One of the things that appeals the most to me about a straight-ahead limited government conservative like Palin is that it represents "a nation" of right-thinking folks, and I believe right-thinking folks are the majority. One of the things most disturbing about candidates like Romney and, it could be, Perry (I was hoping you'd ease my mind on the "international health insurance" thing by explaining what Perry meant), is that it represents a nation of timid Americans afraid to advance the cause of limited government because "the nation" couldn't handle it.
I liked your piece at #343.
On Perry, I try to leave myself some wiggle room by frequently posting he can win, “IF he runs well”, and in a campaign on the national stage that remains to be seen, but he can do it and knock Romney off. Maybe someone else can curb Romney, but Perry seems to have the best chance at the moment.
On Bachman/Palin, Michele Bachman is running a splendid campaign so far, and is all issues/Obama/solutions, all the time. She remains unthreatened by the media, and capably rises above their sniping with some ease. I like that.
Palin still seems a little defensive and uncomfortable except when things are peachy, and it’s too late for her to still be doing nothing that says she is even considering a run.