*Sarah had her time in the spotlight and she failed....let’s get someone new in there.
I’m all for Jindal in 2012. However if Obama has a great 4 years, any candidate willing to run against him will be hurting their chances in 2016.*
I don’t like that logic at all. By that logic Ronald Reagan would’ve never become president nor Abraham Lincoln for that matter. One could flip that logic and say she’s tested candidate. As far as El presidente-electo having a “great” 4 yrs-—if he institutes even a quarter of his true agenda he won’t have a decent 2 yrs in office. I’ll never forget the dems started running against Bush I back right after his triumphant/victorious state of the union address following his Gulf war success and 90% approval rating. 2 1/2 yrs later he was barely able to scrape together 38% in a 3-way race. We got a nobody named Bill Clinton and the rest is history. No, I beg to differ.....Run Sarah Run!!!
Sarah has been exposed positive and negative. Thank God for those who support Sarah. We will accept the positive and we will also pledge to help Sarah to combat the negative. Sarah is now battle-tested, folks. To discard her to the scrap heap of history would be the worst thing that the GOP could do. Superstars like Sarah only come along once every two decades, if that often.
Sarah may be OK, but to compare her to Ronald Reagan is simply absurd. By just about anyone’s standards.
I am so sick of this Sarah stuff. Let it go for a while.
She might be OK in a few years, but most people are sick of her. I know I am.