Buried way down in your third paragraph, is your agenda:
“Here’s a sensible counter-proposal. Let’s accept Sarah as an applicant for the job. Done. No more discussion needed on the subject of Sarah”
-
WRONG.
This is hardly the time to try to be quiet. People are po’ed, and rightly so. And marxists are about to take over America.
No more country club rules. We need to be fired up — about Sarah or whomever, and NOTHING should be done between now and 2012 to quiet down any enthusiasm.
If you have someone you would like to build enthusiasm for (I’m guessing your posting on behalf of Romney, from your subtle undermining of Palin) then it is your obligation and duty to SAY WHO.
Otherwise, get out of the way.
And take Romney with you!
I’m so *disgusted* I ever contributed to Mitt’s campaign.
What I meant by "no more discussion needed" was that on the question of whether or not she is a potential candidate/leader/standard bearer, I think the sensible thing to do is accept her as a viable prospect. Meaning WE, our side, needn't debate on whether or not she is The One. Let's put her name on the list, and try to find more names. Good ones. Real competition. Let's see Sarah compete against, say, Newt Gingrich. Let's test her on OUR terms.
As for Romney, I think he's a fake, phony fraud and we shouldn't waste 10 seconds on him. As for who the others should be to compete for the job, I don't know. I'm putting out an APB. If folks want to sign on with Sarah now, that's their business, and they are free to advocate for her. I'd like to see some competition, and see her tested on our terms. Let's see a think tank host some conservative debates. I'd like to see her debate Newt Gingrich. While he may not be presidential material, he certainly can debate the issues. Let's test our prospects on our terms. I don't think that's too much to ask.
I'm not sold on Sarah. She's likable, but I'm not convinced we can't do better. In fact, I hope we can. I think it makes sense to strive for the best. And competition is the way to get it.