Replies

Sarah may not have all the experience that Reagan had, but she has the wisdom, charisma, and conservative values of Ronald Reagan.

It's not her values or conservatism that many of us doubt, Victoria. It's her intelligence. All the heart-felt values in the world are useless when presented with a problem beyond one's ability to comprehend. The presidency comes with a load of problems that demand a keen mind, and I'm sorry, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that she possesses one.

Someone else mentioned that FR is an echo chamber, and it's a true statement. So, the fact even here, amongst people who fall to the right of any conventional definition of conservative, she has so many detractors should tell any thinking person that she's not going to be president. She's not going to win the nomination even if she runs.

If by some Perotish quirk she does win the nomination, you can bet that many otherwise faithful Republicans, myself included, will not vote for her. Not because we'd prefer Obama, but because in the event of a Palin nomination, the message must be sent that it is unacceptable lest it happen again. We'd rather deal with four more years than open the door to future Palins. That way, when we do take back the presidency, we'll do so with a candidate who'll do us proud and not embarrass us for the next four years as Carter embarrassed the Democrats.

I think you're overstating it. I think you have fallen for the dominant mainstream media depiction of Sarah Palin as a simple minded person. They tried the same thing with Reagan back in the day. It's not necessarily true. As for evidence of her intelligence, she is a successful and accomplished person. She speaks well and gets her message across - an unintelligent person tends to have difficulty with communication.

She isn't an elite, for sure. She wasn't educated in top schools. She doesn't have a graduate degree. She doesn't read the newspapers and magazines that the intellectual elite devours to get their news. But none of that makes her unintelligent. None of that suggests she isn't intelligent enough to be a national leader.

You're connecting dots that aren't there. Maybe there are questions about Palin. Maybe she doesn't have what it takes. Maybe she does. We don't find out the answer to those questions if we listen to you. We will find out by listening to her and seeing if voters react well.

If she decides to run and loses, you will be right. If she decides to run and wins, you will be wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're in no position to announce her as a sure loser should she run. That's remarkably presumptuous.

I think she can do it - maybe I'm wrong. But I won't be so obnoxious as to anoint her a winner or a loser of an election over two years away. Indeed, speaking of intelligence, that would be compelling evidence of a lack of intelligence and wisdom.

Your reasoning regarding why a second Obama term is preferable to a Palin presidency isn't particularly compelling to me. All the talk of opening doors is silly - if everything you say is true, that door may already be wide open, after all, by the Obama presidency.

You're in no position to condemn her as a losing candidate at this point in the game. If she wins, fine. If she fails, well, we have failed before. But taking losses today for some imagined big win tomorrow isn't a particularly intelligent or persuasive message to most people.