If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on
anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing... Margaret Thatcher
Posted on 11/10/2008 10:19:03 PM PST by RescueTheRepublic
Would like to get some feedback from fellow freepers on this one. Would be poetic justice if Sarah could spend a few years in the Senate and then defeat an incumbent Obama. I'm quite sure she wouldn't vote "present".
Governors are much better candidates for POTUS.
WHY PUNISH HER with the SENATE... The Senate seems to only remove one’s COMMON SENSE!!
>Governors are much better candidates for POTUS.
That’s why Jindal should be the front-runner but let’s leave it to the party delegates to decide.
No. Senate is not good experience for president.
She could go to the Senate this Jan, and have 4 years of national exposure before running in 2012.
Exactly no senate is ruins one for president.
Why demote a cat-herder into a cat?
The Senate’s a club for arrogant twits. She should continue to clean up Alaska and have an even bigger laundry list of accomplishments to run on in 2012.
can we promise ourselves that we won't tear down every candidate like we did last time?
It is a 60 day appointment and then there is a runoff election. No permanent appointment for the term.
She would have to run for the seat.
I agree with everyone else—Remain a governor and learn to govern and not become a compromiser in the Senate.
No. Then, Sarah is one of a hundred misfits that I wouldn’t
trust with any part of my life.
She’s doing fine where She is.
Two more years of executive experience, then, onto the trail will be much better for us.
NO........ being in the senate is a killer... as a rule we never elect people from the senate... the senate would ruin her...
I still wish Duncan Hunter had a shot, but I know that’s likely a pipe dream. :-(
Murkowski appointed his daughter and Sarah was able to drive to office through that wedge.
Poetic justice would be for SP to do whatever SP wants to do, so long as she kicks Lib a$$ and fights corruption and stays true to her principals. In 2012, she will have either made a name for herself on a national level to run, or she either strayed away Doubtfull). So long as we don’t forget our job, it’s our job to keep pinging on the media about it, the rest is up to this great person. She’ll come through, will we?
“That’s why Jindal should be the front-runner but let’s leave it to the party delegates to decide.”
No one knows who Jindahl is. Don’t underestimate the exposure factor.
“Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.
When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year — Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127910/posts
Amen to the arrogant twits thing! They all think senators are “Princes in Waiting”. Term limits of two years for a senator should slow down their thievery—or better yet, eliminate the senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.