I can't speak for all Palin supporters, just as you can't speak for all who have doubts. I have no doubt there are some Palin supporters who are koolaid drinkers.
Similarly, there are thoughtful people who have doubts...and there are some people who have doubts who are simply full of cr@p.
There's no reason you should have any qualms about disagreeing with me. We're here to exchange ideas, right?
There's no doubt Sarah is a human being. She will make mistakes and exhibit poor judgment at times.
Compare and contrast...I think Michele Bachmann just shot herself in the foot by hiring Rollins. Yet hiring Rollins was the conventionally smart thing to do, a way to show you are a serious candidate.
My gut says Palin will never hire a Rollins; she believes she and her inner circle are the best spokespeople and strategists. There's great advantage in that; they know the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and their loyalty is unquestioned.
The disadvantage to that? No one in her inner circle has ever run a national campaign.
She's (IMO) going to run an untraditional campaign, one designed to bypass and undermine the establishment, be they RATs, RINOs or house media. She won't need the structure a traditional candidate would.
The disadvantage? The only president to successfully do so, even in part, was Reagan. There's no manual on how to do so; that will be written after the campaign, for better or worse.
She's not yet announced. Really, there's no point in having a campaign organization yet. Again, for the non-traditional campaign she would run, what's needed and what's superfluous?
They'll make mistakes there too.
In any case, if she runs (again, IMO) she intends to be a transformational figure, not a caretaker or a placeholder.
Compare and contrast again with Romney. Romney will run a traditional campaign, and will undoubtedly do it as well as it can be done. I have no doubt he has the management skills required to run a campaign and a country.
Unfortunately, his nomination and election would be only somewhat less disasterous for the country than Obama's reelection at best...possibly more so.
If Obama has Tea Party House and Senate to deal with, he's effectively neutered. Romney? Not so much.
Just as with Scott Brown...I supported him for Senate in Massachusetts, but I could never support him for President. No person who could win statewide office in Massachusetts would ever be a suitable candidate.
I think his judgment is flawed. I listen to his thrashing about on Romneycare and I shake my head. I fear the damage a guy with an (R) behind his name can do to the party and the country. Flawed policies, flawlessly executed...no thank you.
I see the campaigns of RR and W as being fundamentally different.
So let's provide some context. She will undoubtedly be a flawed candidate, but there's no other kind; flawless is not an option.
She's not yet declared, and may not run.
There's a lot of decisions and speeches to be made and work to do before the convention. She may bomb.
She's fearless. That means she will make mistakes at full volume and full speed.
I believe if she runs her campaign will be the template for conservatives going forward...and I believe if she runs she will fundamentally change the relationship between government, politicians and the press, even if she loses.
I'm rooting for her to pull it off for everyone's sake. There are plenty of reasons she could fail.
I think we all acknowledge what we're dong now isn't working.
Thank you also for your thoughtful reply. I found it interesting and challenging and, for me, that’s the best kind of reply to receive. :)
Just to reiterate, my doubts about Palin do not have anything to do with her conservative positions, with which I mostly agree. They have to do with those very qualities you, and others, characterize as “unconventional,” and I characterize as (for want of better adjectives) shallow and disorganized. If she runs, my hope is that those who see better qualities in her than I do at present are right, because we can’t afford a catastrophic mistake.