I have no beef with Sarah Palin. I think she’s a fairly solid conservative, though I found her support for bailing out the auto industry disturbing. All I’ve suggested is that she doesn’t have enough experience to be the next President.
You want a rational argument I’ll give you one. We elected Obama, who had eight years of doing nothing in the Illinois State Senate and four years in the US Senate under his belt. His lack of executive experience and his lack of understanding of how government actually works has been a complete disaster. Obama being a disaster has actually worked out well for conservatives. For as bad as he’s been he would have been much, much worse had he been a competent and skilled negotiator and politician.
Sarah Palin has all of two years of experience under her belt as Governor of a very small state. We conservatives need to make sure the GOP nominates not just a conservative but a skilled conservative politician if we want to even dream about turning this country around. Sarah Palin is great for getting conservatives excited and she’s great at tipping over liberal sacred cows. Being President is more than having a pretty face, giving good speeches and having lofty ideas. It takes political skill and experience, of which Palin has neither.
If Palin was serious about running for President she would have run for the Alaska Senate seat last year. Instead she sat out, probably because she would have lost.
If Palin had wanted to run for President, she would have run for Senate? No one would run for the Senate to run for the Presidency. That's criticism for the sake of criticism.
If I wanted a skilled executive I would have supported Mitt. I do not want all the government I'm paying for. The only thing worse than paying for a lot of government is actually getting it. I want someone who understands they are being sent there to shrink government, not run it better.
You argue that Obama and his method of governance have been failures. I would argue they've been spectacularly successful. That all depends, of course, upon what one wishes to achieve.
Obama wanted to fundamentally change the government. Who can deny he was successful?
How? By going around the institutional structures. Working within the system would have slowed him down. To some degree he worked with a hostile/divided Congress. He was more radical than his party. That's why the tsunami like losses for the RATs.
One need only see that the newly empowered eGOP is debating how much spending should go up to contemplate that a fiscally conservative president will face a hostile eGOP Congress.
The world has changed. To the degree your assumptions stay the same, you will be increasingly powerless to understand politics.