Look, the trouble is that we’re not going to elect YOU to be president. So we all have to settle for someone who is “good enough.” If we make “better” the enemy of good enough, we end up with a Romney candidacy or a McCain candidacy. And a Clinton or Obama presidency. That’s the thing about these elections; in the end Democrats aren’t ever going to compete for your vote, or mine. We really need a candidate who can win, and who won’t act as if the economy were his own personal infinite source of revenue.That was my rationale back in January, 2011 when I adopted “DRAFT PALIN” as my tagline. And history has certainly vindicated that decision in my mind. There were all sorts of people in the Republican field, but nobody who was really good in all dimensions. Palin would have been better than any of the others, and I admit she has some things I wouldn’t specify in the ideal candidate. But she struck me as good enough, in that field, and IMHO electable if ANY Republican is electable. Always assuming that she could raise the $$$$. I for one would have contributed much more than I ever did for any prior candidate.
But, not even FReepers could agree, as your postings here amply illustrate. But precisely WHO was your candidate??? They all crashed and burned - and Palin never even entered the lists. The results were precisely what the George Stephanopolises of the world wanted - plenty of internal damage to the Republican Party, and a nominee who is not a conservative leader. In retrospect - and even in prospect, I might add, conservative leaders shouldn’t participate in “debates” which are actually press interrogations designed to embarrass them. We should have drafted Palin into the primaries, and she should have run a campaign which did not include “debates” intended to embarrass her. And just let the chips fall where they may. I honestly don’t see how we could have done worse than we did.
As regards the need for a president with a scientific background, maybe we should nominate Michael Mann. </sarcasm>
Do you realize this is the exact argument that was made for Bush in 2000 and 2004?
Why do you think my radar is triggered by someone who could back McCain for re-election, and intimate they are for another ‘not an amnesty’ amnesty?
She has vindicated your thoughts about her? How did she do that, saying nice things you wanted to hear. Romney is doing that right now. I don’t trust him one bit.
That’s not to infer she’s as bad as Romney, because I don’t think she is.