IT’S SARAH PALIN !!!!!!!

I believe you are right. I think some of this old guard from the Leftist media need to pass away; the truth about the Socialist/Communists needs to come out – and the effects thereof – and then down the road, consider running.

Though we have made strides this past year, I do not think there will be enough time to banish the Beast, that seeks to destroy a candidate like Sarah.

Preach it, preach it to me brother!

And yes…you are most definitely her favorite. :>)

Tasty and well made, but, total baloney.

how’d you manage to get your name on all those quarters?

Can I have the name, address and phone number of your agent?

Palin has a small window of opportunity. After 2010 there will be many new governors and senators who will available in 2016 and 2020. Come 2013, she is Dan Quayle.

She may have flaws as a candidate, including her ability to reach independent voters. It’s a fair question whether the GOP should nominate her. But what’s best for the GOP and what’s best for Palin may be different. If she wants to be President, 2012 really is her best chance. I suspect she will be extremely competitive in Iowa and could beat Huckabee there and move on to South Carolina.

If she wins Iowa, that also probably prevents any other candidate from getting enough momentum to challenge Romney in New Hampshire (the only outlier is Giuliani who (IF he decided to run) conceivably could adopt the McCain strategy from 08 and go straight to New Hampshire). If Daniels, Pawlenty, Thune, whomever finish behind Huckabee and Palin in Iowa, they aren’t going anywhere. Then it’s a Romney-Palin race and frankly that looks like a pretty even match.

So if Palin wants to be President, now is the time to go for it. One can read the tea leaves many ways, but writing a second book so quickly and trying to do the Alaska television series now might mean that Palin is trying to pack in as much earning as possible before the presidential campaign starts in earnest this November. If she did not plan on running, a less intense pace might be a better course of action. Also, the reports of regular foreign and economic policy briefings suggest that Palin is preparing herself.

So while many of us may prefer folks other than Palin to be the nominee (I would prefer Rudy, Cheney (either of them!), John Bolton or Paul Ryan), I think it’s specious to suggest that Palin’s own ambitions (if she has them) would be hurt by running in 2012. Au contraire!

Nice analysis EPU (and kudos to Ziegler as well). I reco this diary as one who has had a “Sarah Palin 2012″ bumper sticker on my car since before 1/20/09. It will remain there. If she runs, I’m all in unless Zombie Reagan appears. There is not a single potential GOP candidate that I would support over her for the nomination.

Now, with that background, I grant that virtually all the arguments you (& Ziegler) make are valid. I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that she cannot beat Obama, but I do concede that it would not be likely. The problem is, I believe it is even less likely given ANY of the potential rivals mentioned to date. No matter what credence we like to give to competence and principles, our candidate will have to stand up in at least 3 debates opposite Obama. His charisma and speechmaking skills (however much BS comes out of his mouth) are formidable, and we will simply be toasted if we don’t have someone who at least comes close to matching him in charisma and the ability to generate excitement.

But 2012 is still far away (though less so every day!), and someone unexpected may still emerge. Remember, very few Americans knew who Sarah Palin was just 70 days before the ’08 election.

I do not solve a problem like Sarah. Unlike 2008 when the lamestream media decided who will be the GOP candidate, I hope that the conservative base of the GOP will decide the GOP candidate in 2012.
The RNC and the lamestream media should butt out of the selecting.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Palin would have the largest, most motivated ground game that might ever be seen in GOP history. The conservative women would volunteer in droves. To say that she couldn’t win? I don’t know. She would once again explain her position on why she left the governorship in Alaska which we all know Democrats were trying to bankrupt and destroy her with stupid ethics charges that were completely frivolous. The fact is, aside from John Thune and Paul Ryan, I really don’t like the rest of the GOP field. Too many problems with Huckabee (too soft on crime being the most notable but a lot of people think he was a nanny state governor) and Romney (Romneycare in Mass. and the evangelical vote likely wouldn’t show up in force for him). Still a long way to go but I wouldn’t have any problems with Palin. What will motivate the voters in 2012 isn’t whether to vote for Palin but to vote for anyone but Obama.

(and Obama ain’t Clinton), and given the incompetence that has been shown so far under this administration, I think that there is very little chance that Obama will be re-elected.

Many independents who voted for him in 2008 have been waking up to the folly of what their vote did. The youth vote isn’t going to be there next time – not only will those kids be 4 years older, many of them will be facing a dismal jobs market. Plus, the novelty of a “historic” vote – the first black president – isn’t going to be there anymore; been there, done that, checked that box.

Will Ms. Palin run? I sure hope so – she’ll have my vote. I think by then her exposure will have shown people that she isn’t an empty-headed ninny, but a shrewd competitor who can take the hard knocks and still come up swinging. At this point, the GOP nomination is hers to lose.

Accurate, as usual for him.

Two things will come out of the Obama presidency, both unfortunate but factual.

1. Picking the “young guy with a bunch of new ideas” is over for now. I don’t think people are going to trust that again.

2. Picking the “black guy because we feel better now” is also over. Sadly, instead of the first black president being someone like Walter Williams or Clarence Thomas, we got leftie Obama. People will not be able to separate his foolishness and incompetence and wildly leftist agenda from his color. I’ve already heard people who were staunchly against him say, “See, I told ya’.” That little experiment is done for another ten to twenty years, depending on how badly he screws things up.

Sarah would be smart to establish herself for at least another two cycles and then when she has a little gray in her hair and people like Matthews are gumming oatmeal, she can come back.

I’m no Palin basher either, I 100% support what she is doing now, raising awareness and preaching conservatism to the masses. She get’s people excited, motivated (including the Democrats) and positioned to support *their guy*.

Personally, I blame McCain, yet again for a bad decision that has harmed all of us. Palin should have been picked for 2012 by a candidate who has the opportunity to win. Que Sera Sera.

I’m honestly surprised this is a discussion point. A lot of us might be excited about the thought of a Palin candidacy but if near-term ambitions for higher office were her driving factor I don’t think she would have resigned the governorship much less everything she’s done since then.

It seems clear she’s decided the duties of holding an executive office just get in the way of what she really wants to do. I can’t see her reversing course on that, not for 2012.

She’s “playing too much to the home crowd”? First time I’ve read here that someone needs to work on appealing more to moderates! I think she can win over independents with a compelling campaign. That’s what campaigns are for. Gerald Ford and other Republican moderates deemed Reagan as unelectable before 1980, and he proved them dead wrong.
That said, my advice would be for Gov. Palin to open an ecploratory committee and make visits to early primary states to make connections. She should then choose not to run. She could easily take a position in a Romney administration and prepare for a later run, if she desires. The only question is what position would be good for her? Interior Secretary? Trade Ambassador? I say ambassador to Canada for a couple of years and then UN Ambassador. I’m just thinking out loud, though.

What planet is Ziegler living on? The media would NOT love Palin to run. The media is doing everything in its power to destroy her. This is TOTALLY dissimilar to the media lovefest for McCain.

On the contrary, this time around, the media gives Romney respect as the “serious” GOP hopeful for 2012.

If we are going to base decisions about the GOP nominee on the way the media treats various candidates, it is CLEAR who the media believes Obama can beat – and it ain’t Sarah.

Who exactly are these ” other good GOP candidates”? I’m just not seeing them yet.

Personally I suspect that the nominee for 2012 isn’t even on the radar yet.

. If she wants to return to political office someday, her best plan would be to not run for President in 2012. Instead, she should endorse a fresh face dark house for the primary (i.e My Man Mitch, T-Paw, or Haley) early. It would give him lot of media buzz and victory in the primary and then the general. Palin would then be appointed either Energy Secretary or Energy Czar. This would give Palin a track record of competence on a national stage. She could then use that as a platform to run for President in the future.

. If she wants to return to political office someday, her best plan would be to not run for President in 2012. Instead, she should endorse a fresh face dark house for the primary (i.e My Man Mitch, T-Paw, or Haley) early. It would give him lot of media buzz and victory in the primary and then the general. Palin would then be appointed either Energy Secretary or Energy Czar. This would give Palin a track record of competence on a national stage. She could then use that as a platform to run for President in the future.

I would like to see her be the RNC chairman. This would allow her to do the things she is good at and set herself up for Sec. State for the next candidate. That would give her the political experience she needs to justify running for president.

While I will say opinions are like —holes, and you certainly are entitled to yours, just like all the NRCC idiots who picked John McCain.
So you see your opinion certainly can’t be as reputable as the talking heads of the NRCC. Therefore using their logic as a guide, I have determined that you and many other ill informed political want-a-be’s, are probably WRONG!! I predict your assessment of the American voters is out of touch. We are sick and tired of being lied to by all the professional political hacks of both parties. At least Sarah is real.
Sorry if I was rude, but your persuasions are no more guaranteed than mine and or Al Gore’s. Talk is cheap! Let’s see what the voters say.

This is like hunting over a baited field. LOL

If Palin is the candidate, I would certainly vote for her. Not knowing who all of the candidates will be, and, jumping on a bandwagon for anyone now is premature. I am hoping that our best candidate for 2012 is still unknown. The 2012 cycle will start after the 2010 elections.

As to the reference of Palin being a far right radical, she hasn’t done anything to dissuade that notion with her support of Rand Paul. That will hang around her neck much worse than her campaigning for McCain. One could buy that she is paying her dues back to McCain. She owes Rand Paul nothing.

“She has to be the cheerleader for a while before she can be the quarterback.”

In discussing this with all the conservatives I know, most of whom like Palin a whole lot, the opinion is unanimous that Gov. Palin should confine herself to keeping the base and the independants charged-up in the short term and make a big move once she’s been on the public stage for something more than 2 or 3 years.

I think in the near term her best efforts will be to make the rounds of the Tea Parties and conservative candidate fund raising functions. The libs have nothing even close to her since their moonbat messiah took a big crap and went south with his facist medical insurance power grab.

Anyone for whom the Left so obviously evinces an immediate, instinctive need to destroy must have a place on the team. But by no means need it be team captain. Used properly, Palin could do tremendous damage to the Left, and they obviously know it. So keep her on the bench until specific moments arise, then put her in the game. To maintain the basketball metaphor, I’d say she would serve best as a matchup defensive player.

The strongest case we were able to make against Obama was the lack of experience in the Federal government. It wasn’t enough, of course, given our candidate’s behavior and the media idolatry of Obama and willful propagandizing.

What will be clear by 2012 is that the lack of executive experience on Obama’s part made for huge governance errors. The argument then will be that we need someone with executive experience to take the reins.

Ironically, though, this will give Obama the advantage in reelection, especially if he learns from 2009-10 and start to govern more effectively – he then will have the media playing up that he is the seasoned veteran who made rookie mistakes but has learned from them and is proving to be an effective leader. That at least will be the media spin.*

To counteract that, we will need a candidate with proven executive experience who can argue that they have the experience to hit the ground running.

Unfortunately, Sarah will not have that record in 2012 – and indeed the media will thrash her as a “failed executive” – especially if, as Art has been predicting, her signature policies fail or get reversed by the legislature. So in this setting, Sarah would be about the worst candidate we could pick to be at the head of the ticket.

That said, I think Sarah does have a bright future in a number of possible supporting roles where her ability to rally the troops and wound the Democrats will get maximum utilization.

*On the other hand, if Obama doesn’t learn from his mistakes (especially if that means the Democrats nominate someone else), we still will need someone with experience so that the people don’t look at our candidate and say “we don’t want to make the same mistake again on experience that we made with Obama”. That still works to Sarah’s disadvantage.

This is a spot on assessment.

There are two things that caused Sarah to lose steam in 2008. The first was letting the media trounce on her (without punching back) immediately following her announcement. The second was the Couric interview.

However, her convention speech did two things that helped: First, it energized an abysmally disappointed base. Second, and most important, her convention speech showed how quickly an 18-month, carefully-crafted image can be taken down (with one 30-something minute speech).

It’s the glass jaws.

Remember the glass jaws.

They ring loudly, but the shatter easily. That’s what Sarah demonstrated and that is more important than anything else in the 2008 campaign.

She should not run in 2012. If she does run for the White House, 2012 would not be the time. She’s been too damaged, thanks to John McCain’s campaign managers.

I got a 2 question automated telephone poll a little while ago.

“Do you consider yourself a Tea Party Patriot?” Yes

“Do you support Sarah Palin?” Yes

“Thank you for answering this poll.”

It didn’t ask me what I supported Sarah FOR….

Anyone who thinks Palin will be the tool for some squishy “serious” candidate must not have been listening to her. I doubt she’s interested in taking heat from the Left and firing up her base and then sitting back demurely so some more “acceptable” white guy with the right gravitas can run. I doubt that she has endured the flak she has in order to be a support player for the GOP. At the risk of being accused of playing the gender card half of the comments here sound a little sexist to me.

What’s the problem with waiting for the primaries? If the voters think she is unqualified or unelectable that will come out in the primaries and someone else will be the nominee. Palin should be able to throw her hat in the ring just like anyone else. What other candidate has been told it wasn’t their turn?

More likely what the GOP needs to worry about is not whether Palin is the nominee but that if they continue to snark about her & her supporters and then nominate some non-conservative Palin will step back entirely. And then some of her supporters will do likewise.

We want new blood that is alive from the neck up!
With a personality that can actually draw a croud.
Who is good looking for the camera. Who speaks well. Who has the message we want to hear.

Palin, Bachman, Perry, Pence. People like this.
Do not give us Romney or Huckster, or Pawlenty unless you want Obama to live again!

I totally agree that Palin should not run for president in 2012, but will do you one better. . . she should NEVER run. She cannot win for one simple fact – she does not have the basic abilities it would take to handle that position. We have already experienced one president who is lacking these qualities – we don’t need another.

Does anybody think he still has a chance? We could point back to his campaign pledges and how different things would be if he had been elected President and his policies had been enacted. If Palin supported him or ran as his VP candidate, do you think he would be viable? I definitely think he could beat Obama in the General, but the primaries got him last time because he started too late and made too many strategic errors. I think he could learn from his mistakes and do very well, but then again my screen name is Fredforamerica. lol

..remind me to hire you to run the diversion.

You sure brought ‘em out of the weeds.

I don’t think Sarah will run (doesn’t matter about “should”) and much of your reasoning will come into play in her mind as well. But she won’t run mainly because she’s the real McCoy. She knows she can do better for her country..longer…finding some roost that last longer than 4 or 8 years. I’d like to see her, and 28 more just like her in the Senate, for then I’d know we’ll win it all back. There are other places as well.

A while ago when I first wrote that Sarah Palin would not be the right person to nominate in 2012, everyone at Red State pounced one me. There are reasons too many to enumerate here as to why Palin would not be a good candidate. Important point is that celebrity politics is not a good fit for Republicans. And as Obama’s presidency so glaringly demonstrates, not good for America either. Here’s a brief list of my reasons:

1. She quit governorship of Alaska
2. Too divisive
3. Limited voter base
4. Reputation for lacking knowledge
5. Grievance politics and too much showcasing

Ultimately, she will be the Obama version of a Republican candidate. After four years of Obama people will want someone sturdy, stable, profound, middle of the road, intellectually deft, and most importantly, a non-quitter. Mark my words, if this woman is nominated, the Republicans will throw away the probable victory in the next elections.

These dynamics will change in time.

Nobody likes to hear it, but dark horses are often a pipe dream. Everyone wants their perfect candidate to rise from ashes.

People loved Jindal and then he gave his first prime time speech and people placed him in the not ready for primetime category. People wanted to jump on the next great dark horse, Sanford, and we all know how that turned out. Now they are looking at other unknowns for salvation.

The New Hampshire primary is little over a year and a half away. Internet activism only goes so far. The candidate will most likely be one of the big three or four names with experience, organization and fundraising abilities.

People may knock Palin until the frontrunner is Romney or Pawlenty or vice versa. Its all too early to tell. Right now, Sarah may be charting a wayward course. But there is too much time for judgement.

But one thing is certain is that those who have the most skin in the game in 2010 have another advantage. Dont think people forget all those checks and campaing stops. That’s another advantage for the big names. We live in the era of perpetual campaigning. National, last minute surges and front porch campaigns are il-advised endeavors. Its a big country with diverse GOP factions. It takes time to muster real dedicated support. Checks, groundpounding, handshakes and committee activism still matter.

To the extent I think about the next president, it boils down to I think we can do better. Things could change in her favor over the next year of course, but that is not likely given the hard left’s insanity and our dire circumstances. Now that she’s done her book tour she should hole up in her study and use it. Besides, I don’t think she will run. She isn’t clubbing on The View. Where is her book on energy security?

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

All this handwringing and foreboding about Palin merely competing in the presidential primary is ridiculous. The rigors of the campaign, including the debates STRENGTHENS and legitimizes the BEST candidate. Since 1968 the primaries have produced the absolute best candidate with the exception of 1976, 1996, and 2008 when these same warnings were listened to by the party.

If Palin makes it through the crucible of a Presidential nomination fight she DESERVES her shot, and here is how she will win:

1. In the general there is no red state from 2008 she won’t carry
178 electoral votes
2. If she carries North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and either Nevada OR Colorado she wins more than 270 electoral votes, because
3. After reapportionment red states should have a net increase of 8-10 additional electoral votes.

Obviously this strategy holds true for ANY Republican candidate.

The total popular vote differential in those state was just over one million. Flip only a half million votes and BINGO

A republican could win these swing states and still lose the popular vote just like 2000

Her toughest task is NOT the general, but actually the Primary, and these Palin Paranoid people know it. I’ve been involved in Republican elections since Reagan, and I’ve NEVER seen an attempted blackballing of a potential candidate, EXCEPT FOR REAGAN HIMSELF.

THE PALIN PARANOIDS KNOW SHE WILL WIN IN IOWA, COMPETE CLOSELY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, WIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND FLORIDA. AFTER THAT THE SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISING WILL GIVE HER THE EDGE ON SUPER TUESDAY, and her momentum will propel her to the nomination.

It may not happen that way, BUT LET THE WOMAN COMPETE AND ALLOW THE VOTERS TO DECIDE.

I learned my politics from masters – Boss Charlie Buckley’s Bronx Democratic machine when I was a youngster. Then I discovered economics and became a Republican. I am a student of history, particulary military history, and politics. What bothers me is that so many commenters seem to lack any appreciation of strategy and/otr tactics as they apply to politics. I strongly suggest that some commenters take the time to understand the situation that Sarah Palin faced in Alaska when she resigned. Whether, as Achance believes, she was not a good governor or whether, because of the “whistleblower” laws that she, herself, supported, theere was no political strategy, either strategic or tactical, that would allowed her ro govern effectively. I submit that her ability to “know when to hold them and when to fold them” is a plus.

is resigning isn’t just knowing when to fold a hand, its leaving the game altogether.

In many instances a U.S. President is the most ironically alone person there is. A U.S. President may not always have a viable strategy for success. Think Bush in 2007.

People tend not to want to hire someone who quits.

I’m going to laugh myself silly at all these so-called conservative writers who dog Sarah Palin. We are so afraid of success. Whatever happened to the party of Lincoln, relatively unknown, mostly feared and hated, not considered a serious candidate(He’s had no real experience) Yet exactly what was needed at a critical hour in our nations history. Sarah Palin has a God given annointing for leadership, now someone else may step forward and have this as well, but I haven’t seen anyone yet. The annointing is what people are drawn to, and what makes people hate her guts. Its’ what Reagan had.

Coming from NH I can tell you it won’t always be Republicans deciding the nominee in every state for the 2012 race. Obama’s falling support amongst white independents will drive them to the 2012 GOP primary. It will be a Palin vs Romney showdown after South Carolina and Independents will play a roll in it.

I hope Palin runs in 2012 and I am tired the pathetic Mitt Romney trolls trying to run her down. She is the only real conservative in the running, Mitt Romney is terrible and so are the supporters of Mitt that blatantly try to run Palin down. EPU, Neil Stevens, and RINKER! Palin is a conservative and should run. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping liberal that should go run in the Democrat primary.

Obama was the young Mike Tyson in 2008, seemingly invincible. Hillary landed a couple of blows too late, and Palin landed a haymaker square on Obama’s chops with her speech. Coming out of 2008, Conservatives thought we needed the Great Republican Hope.

But Obama has turned into the old Mike Tyson. A tomato can. We need a solid Conservative nominee, the one that will be most impactful on behalf of Conservatism.

I suggest that we remember the skeptical nature of Conservatism and sit back for a couple of years to see who has the greatest impact on behalf of Conservatism.

That’s the most important ongoing trend in Washington right now. People are fearful of what he is doing. And his governance is likely to make any recovery a short term event.

Art’s point is valid that Sarah might juice the Democratic turnout. My take is that Palin is the kind of politician not to play base football. She knows she can’t win a Base Election against Teh Won, and has to play 1980 Realignment.

Her task would then be to make relentless economic arguments, as Reagan did in the late Seventies, against the Regime. If she does this, she has the same chance as Reagan did.

Why do I say this? As someone once wrote: while history doesn’t repeat itself, it often rhymes.

Sarah Palin should run in 2012. As if anything said here is even mildly relevant either to her decision or the party’s decision or the good of the country. Just idle gossip.

I say that as a big fan of Sarah Palin. I like her values and agree with her on every important issue. Can she win? I have no idea, but I hope to know in 2012.

Meanwhile we have terribly important substantive policy issues to address. The deficit, the economy, health care, life, military strength, immigration, social security, taxes, etc.

The way to win is to forge a coherent conservative set of interlocking ideas and principles that the American people can believe in. That is hard work because the conservative movement is quite diverse. The Mount Vernon statement was well meant, but reads like a boring speech.

Don’t leave it up to the talk show crowd, or even with elected officials. The tea party movement is only as strong as it is independent from celebrities. Not as much fun as political gossip but maybe it could mean something. The best thing would be if the authors remained anonymous.Lead with ideas ===not with people.

The next President, to the media and the Left Coast’s chagrin, will be the 4th from the greatest state in the Union-Texas’ Rick Perry. I said it, Perry for Prez 2012. Now take that one and chew on it.

2010 Elections.
Defeating Obama’s agenda.

THAT is what we should be concentrating on. No 2012 posts, period.

We’ll have the entirety of 2011 to cuss and discuss 2012, and I guarantee you that by August we’ll all be sick of it and hoping the primaries start as soon as possible.

I would disrecommend this if I could.

May I just remind all of you here of a cbs poll in aug 2007.Only 29% of Americans thought Obama was qualified to be POTUS.Hillary was leading him by double didgets in Dam near every state.Then on the other side Mccain was at the bottom of the heap with Mittens in his usual top spot.Well then came the debates and things changed real fast for everyone.What I am saying is how fast things can change and 2 years is a lifetime in politics.2 weeks can be as well ask Kerry about that one.Palin right now is in that strategic 3rd place slot.As the field widens everyone will get bounced around.I would never count her out even if she was 5th,6th,or 7th.She has an amazing ability to fight back and in a gang of its my turn men,all scrapping it out,everyone might just get the suprise of their lifetime.That includes Obama.I seen her high pressure Bidon debate,if she debates like that and the way she did against 2 men in her state in 2006.Look out everyone.I like the fact so many are encouraging her not to run.That tells me one thing.She will.

there is a lot of truth into what Krauthammer says about here.

I have heard her a couple of times on Hanitty which is not really the toughest show to go on as a conservative.

He tosses you this big softball and you hit it out the park.

In Palin’s case, Sean tosses her the softball and she’s trying to hit it with a hockey stick of pre-scripted cliches.

Now, here’s the BUT ….

I haven’t seen anyone else that impresses me either for 2012.

Pawlenty — A little too into global warming even if he’s coming back out of it and doesn’t excite.

Jindal — Bad response to Obama’s one speech and I don’t know how charismatic he is.

Daniels — A bit too chummy with McCain

Romney — Romneycare will be hung around his neck and will potentially get Obama off the hook for Obamacare.

Newt — Lots of baggage …. some disrespect for the pro-life portion of the party … very into the global warming stuff

Huckabee — a HUGE stateist … worse than GWB plus a serial parolor of future murderers.

Mark Sanford … oh wait … sorry. He had been on my short list.

Rudy — pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, just not going to happen.

Fred — Fred teased me last time and got my money. Unless he gets in by Janurary 2011, I won’t even look at him until the general.

I think Palin is a star, she has always been upbeat, perfect and fantastic. There is no complaint ever that I can throw at her.

However, after seeing Obama being picked for basically the same reasons, I have to take pause and think, “This is for the President of The United States”. This is the person who will be our Commander in Chief, This person will have to deal with Iran, Korea, Afgan…etc. This person will have to undo Obama’s failures.

I just can’t wrap my head around that being Sarah Palin. She is everything and more, I absolutely adore her, however, when I picture a President, I see someone different. A person who commands respect as Commander in Chief. (Dick Cheney always come to mind for me!)

There were a few unknowns, like Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell who came outta nowhere and became Governors. I believe the person who will take over 2012 has yet to be heard from. It’s not Sarah. I see her in Gibbs’ role.

It is that he is a left wing idealogue who doesn’t care about democracy or the Constitution. We knew that. A majority chose to ignore it. Indeed, elections do have consequences.

Funny, the reason I support her is because she can deal with Iran, Korea, etc. and will have no qualms about undoing the Obama legacy. I understand your questioning that, but I just read her differently, I guess.

I sure have nothing to say against Dick Cheney. Clearly Cheney has her on experience. A younger healthier Cheney would have been an excellent president. Now explain to me on what issue Sarah would act substantially differently from him.

Her credentials match up quite well against Teddy Roosevelt’s at the time he became president, or for that matter Harry Truman’s.

I guarantee you will never see her in Gibbs’ role.

They had each spent 2 years as a corruption fighting governor, with their own party anxious to be done with them.

They each had interesting work experience in the private sector in a non urban setting. She did not have military experience. While TR did have o=ne year as asst.secy. of the navy, it is hard to imagine he had a great impact in such a short time. Spain wasn’t exactly a super-power,

As for harry, his two terms in the Senate certainly cpount for something, but he was not a leader and pretty much voted the party line. Doesn’t prove much.

My point is that credentials are largerly in the eye of the beholder. Traditionally presidents are either ex governors or generals. There is a wide range of private sector experience. I see no positive correlation between credentials and performance as President; there may be a negative correlation.

To me the key questions are does the candidate share my values and political philosophy and can I expect good appointments to key positions.

There is no doubt that it will take a lot to overcome the negatives created by the left. That’s why we have a grueling pre-election process.

Seriously, if you want an eye-opener, check out the qualifications of all presidential and vice-presidential candidates in our history.

I really don’t get the emotional anti-Palin sentiment here. If she chooses to run, we will surely know more than enough by the time of the nomination. If someone better runs, great. What is there to gain by dissing her now?

First, I don’t think anybody here “disses” Sarah Palin, if “dis” means “disrespects.” One or two may dislike her, but I’m not one of them. This isn’t emotional, its analytical. As I may have said further upstream, I like Sarah Palin and think she’s great for conservatism, but as a spokesman, not a candidate.

Second, these assertions

While TR did have o=ne year as asst.secy. of the navy, it is hard to imagine he had a great impact in such a short time. Spain wasn’t exactly a super-power,

As for harry, his two terms in the Senate certainly cpount for something, but he was not a leader and pretty much voted the party line.

are factually incorrect and/or irrelevant. If you’re going to make statements like those, do some research first. I gave you a couple of links, but there are probably hundreds out there. I even provided a quote about TR’s contribution to readiness for the Spanish-American War, which was only a sample. If you think my own statements are inaccurate, tell me which ones.

The point wasn’t just that TR and Truman had more experience than Palin does, they had broader life experience, and significant political experience at higher levels of government. In other words, they would have been credible candidates had they run for the office before their first term. Not that that means they would have won. Truman particularly would not even have run. (Even though Truman never went to college, I suspect that with his high school education he was better read than Palin is regarding world affairs. But that’s just a guess. And that isn’t a slam at Palin, merely a slam at our modern-day education system.)

Did you even try to understand what I wrote?

Third, you didn’t try to defend Sarah Palin’s credentials, you merely tried to diminish the credentials of TR and Truman. Not a great strategy if you’re trying to win an election.

Do you think she can win on the “I was Governor while Obama was campaigning for President as a Senator” platform? It’s valid, and it plays great on Hannity. Her two years should beat Obama’s two years–but who is going to decide based on her hand having two G’s while his hand had only two S’s? In 2012, he’ll have a full White house, with four P’s to add to his resume.

So it’s not sufficient. And neither is her conservatism and her ability to arouse the faithful. It’s going to take more than the faithful, it’ll take people who aren’t already in the conservative Republican camp. Palin will need to convince them not only to vote conservative, but to vote for her.

Fourth, I’ve already written my analysis of what it will take to successfully lead the Republican Party, and therefore the more conservative candidate, to victory in 2012. If you read it, you’ll understand why I think Palin is inadequate as a Presidential candidate, and in fact can’t even become adequate in the next ten years. She fulfills my first requirement admirably–she is a true conservative. But in terms of being articulate, convincing, and compelling, she’s weak, and she is definitely not credible as a Presidential candidate to anybody but the truest of true believers. The Democrats and the MSM would bury her, no matter how many of her supporters wrote blogs on her behalf.

Do you not remember that she lost the “Ready for the Oval Office” contest to Joe Biden, even though she wasn’t running for the Oval Office and even though the MSM acknowledged Joe Biden’s inadequacies? The loss wasn’t her fault; she helped McCain much more than she hurt. But we got a preview of how the campaign against her for President would go.

To be clear, John McCain failed on all but the last criteria (credibility), and he was weak on the first one (conservatism). We don’t want to put another one-legged stool out there for our party to try to milk the electoral cow on.

Fifth, you write

To me the key questions are does the candidate share my values and political philosophy and can I expect good appointments to key positions.

There is no doubt that it will take a lot to overcome the negatives created by the left. That’s why we have a grueling pre-election process.

If you’re writing about how you decide to vote, I agree. Picking a candidate, you don’t want to have one who is a sitting duck during the “grueling pre-election process.” Once the public latches on to the idea that she has the same level of experience that Obama did four years earlier, without his ability to convert the uncommitted, our big advantage (Obama’s awful record in office) will be lost. She might win, but she’d be one of the weakest candidates we could field against him. And, to tell you the truth, I don’t believe she’d be the strong Republican President we need to consolidate a winning position. Just “Better than Obama.”

Seriously, if you want an eye-opener, check out the qualifications of all presidential and vice-presidential candidates in our history.

That’s completely irrelevant. We’re talking about getting a candidate elected through public approval, not about whether past candidates were “qualified” or not.

To close, and to reiterate, there is no “emotional anti-Palin sentiment” here. EPU wrote the OP as a suggestion that Palin not run. I agree with him. My heart is with her but my brain says, “not this time.”

I did not mean the comparisons to be taken that literally. I chose TR and Truman because they acceded to the presidency from the vice-presidency. I agree that TR’s naval knowledge and his insistence on readiness give him an edge in commander- in -chief experience. The quote you cited on the shape of the navy (unless I misunderstand) was from TR himself.

Truman is my favorite post bellum democratic president. TR gets mixed reviews but I wonder if he is blamed too much for the progressives who followed him. Clearly, a debate for another time.

I meant no disrespect for either man and was not trying to minimize their experience the way many Palin detractors do with hers. I agree with you that at some level, comparisons like these are irrelevant. But from day one, her enemies tried to portray her as singularly unqualified for the vice-presidency, let alone the presidency, So it is fair to point out that history does not bear it out.

My best argument has nothing to do with her past experience. She has almost two years to get ready for a campasign if she chooses to. Then a dozen or more primaries. If she fails the electability test at that point, I hope the GOP has a better candidate. I’m simply not ready to rule out the one candidate who currently is right on philosophy, right on the issues, and who has a significant base.

It would be great if there wre someone with her views and charisma who had been a successful CEO, a few years in the air force, a few years in Congress and cabinet level experience, who had also been a two term governor of a major state where she accomplished miracles.

The list is empty. It has been empty for 200 years. Only Washington came close. Do you have a clear idea of where to compromise?