Posted on 11/05/2010 7:59:49 AM PDT by sussex
I guess that means I'm not conservative, right?
Yes, she picked conservative candidates well and helped most of them through a primary victory and through the general election. Can she stay in that position of kingmaker? Karl Rove did a good job of picking winners and losers as well, but I bet you wouldn't want him as your candidate.
I'd love to have a rational conversation about the electability of Sarah Palin here, but it's impossible - people take it as though I am attacking Jesus himself. There is PDS (of which I don't have, because she was very effective this last election with what she did), and there is PCDS, Palin Criticism Derangement Syndrome.
I would be so honored. He was 100% right. I think he should have united behind O'Donnell after the primary, but she was a terrible candidate.
Palin has put forth a rather impressive performance, showing off a ratio of 29 wins to 17 losses
Which is why I'd like her to keep doing what she's doing now in future elections - hand-pick conservative candidates to ascend through primaries and into the generals.
I would have also lumped Rubio and Paul in with Toomey as being strong conservative candidates that won based on the combination of their principles and their candidacy itself.
Reid, Boxer, Fwank are all awful people and worse candidates who win due to the fact that we have to co-exist with idiot liberals.
Those bad candidats so many love to harp on won their primaries. What imaginary ctiteria do you all draw from?
She’s a helluva lot smarter and politically saavy than either Angle or O’Donnell and would not make the gaffs they made. Also, if she was that unelectable the left would not be so concerned with writing story after story about how unelectable she is. They would be pushing her to get the nomination. Besides, I really don’t think she is going to run...
How much more exposure does Sarah need?
I don’t think exposure is the issue with respect to her electability.
I suppose you want another Bob Dole.
I don't think Dan was alluding to Bob Dole. Perhaps Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio?
Every time a particular politician hits a home run, fickle remarks follow:
"Condi Rice for President!"
"Thompson for President!"
"Rove, you magnificent bastard!"
"Hunter for President!"
"Palin for President!"
"DeMint for President!"
"Bachman for President!"
"Ryan for President!"
"Stevestras for President!"
Then a day later, it's another mantra. Like children at Wal Mart choosing another video game, "this one's better, Daddy."
I suspect everyone here on Free Republic has tremendous respect for Palin's Reaganesque Conservatism, but shouldn't we step back and study all the candidates and not get hung up on one individual and preclude other Conservatives because they're not as pretty as Sarah?
IMOHO
Thanks for your post. I would also vote for Sarah whole heartedly. Her Alaskan accent does grate on me, but nothing that would stop me from voting for her.
Sarah represents my core ideology almost dead-on. However, what good does that do if she can’t be elected? Some on here would rather counter, “IT’S BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU ATTACK HER FOR BEING UNELECTABLE!” They’d rather we brainwash ourselves into thinking that her electability is a certainty, rather than being able to discuss this openly before we re-elect Obama for another 4 years.
When Rudy mentioned that on the View (I know, that audience is dumber than a bag of rocks), he got booed. People simply don't believe it because the MSM went all out to keep people from realizing that.
The truth has to get out there before Palin is viable. As another poster said, perhaps a Sec of State run might be good. Obama not only is totally unqualified but he's simply too young.
Exactly - in fact, the four names you mention bring me glee. I think all four would be wonderful at the top of the ticket, although Rubio has to prove himself on a national level and there may not be enough time to do that before the election gets underway.
As I said previously, and you also said, no one here (to the best of my knowledge) is challenging Palin’s conservative credentials nor challenging her on them. I’m just trying to delve into a discussion on her national electability as a PERSON and CANDIDATE, not as a CONSERVATIVE.
“You caught me.
Got anything educated to say?”
Since you asked, how about this.
Whiners like you hurt the cause. For the first time in decades we have a likable, energizing and astute spokesperson for the people. A proven successful rebel against the elitists. Yet, you want to sling mud in her direction. Why? To what gain? The answer is simple. Your kind simply want to marginalize Palin and further entrench the ruling class.
Whether she runs for POTUS, or not, all of us average Americans owe her a debt of gratitude for what she has done for us. There are dozens of examples why, so pick one and believe.
Yup, I’m actually interested in getting conservatives elected, not just throwing their names on the ballot. Sorry our strategies differ.
Have a nice day.
John Bolton is someone you shouldn’t overlook. He is brilliant, outspoken and conservative.
The "cherry picked" list I mentioned was the endorsement of the weakest candidates she endorsed. The strong candidates won - that was my point.
Conservatism attached to nothingness did not win in this election. Conservatism, coupled with good candidates, did. Every one I did not mention won because they were good conservatives and good candidates.
Which brings me, once again, to my point - we can't just put Sarah's name on the ballot because she's conservative. That didn't work Tuesday, and it won't work in 2012. We need a conservative that is a good candidate. Is she a good candidate? I'm not saying she isn't, I'm saying she has a negative connotation among many people who would love to vote against Obama in 2012, but would hesitate if the nominee is Palin.
Closed minded people like you hurt the cause. During the DE fiasco, FReepers rightfully criticized Rove for attacking O'Donnell after the primary. They said "Rove should have said what he said BEFORE the primary and got behind her after!"
I agree. Guess what? The primary isn't for two years. If she wins, I'll get behind her 100%. But trying to squelch all opposing sides because you think you found a pure conservative (because I'm sure there aren't ANY other conservatives out there), is ridiculous.
For the first time in decades we have a likable, energizing and astute spokesperson for the people.
If that translates into votes, I'd be all for her. The problem is, I think her baggage, whether actual or pushed by the MSM, is real. There are plenty of good candidates we can talk about, and many have been noted here already. Jim DeMint is one of my favorite, and he's got a track record at least as good as Palin's.
Whether she runs for POTUS, or not, all of us average Americans owe her a debt of gratitude for what she has done for us.
Amen. And that's what I'm trying to say here. I want Obama to go down in (or before) 2012. That's my main goal. But Sarah's influence on this election has been tremendous.
Your point is a good one (except the stevestras for president part).
I’d be happy to consider any other candidates. I’m sure Palin would too. I do not want another Bob Dole/John McCain/George Bush. We need a President of the people, for the people. Until somebody better than Palin comes along, I don’t see any value in trying to diminish her electability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.