You seem to be saying Palin’s not a person we should be looking at?
I’ve now done a 180, and have decided I’m supporting (both) Gingrich and Santorum, so that we can force a brokered convention, and then the real fight begins to get Palin as our nominee.
You seem to be trying to downplay Palin’s likelihood?
No? If so, sorry.
I like Palin, but is there even a “likelihood” to be downplayed? The phrase “snowball’s chance in hell” comes to mind.
I'm saying she's not running because she doesn't want the office. At least not now. And she surely wouldn't want it under the circumstances suggested by WONKETTE. Are you kidding?
I'm saying she's not running because she doesn't want the office. At least not now. And she surely wouldn't want it under the circumstances suggested by WONKETTE. Are you kidding?
Mitt would love a brokered convention. The GOP-e working with Rick would seal the deal for Mitt.
At this point, the best path for Sarah that would advance the cause of Liberty is to chose the best time to endorse Newt.
I’m completely against it. I have noticed for awhile that Palin is strangely non-committal. I haven’t really seen much in the way of “leadership” from her, but definitely lots of commentary. She says things, but then doesn’t take it to its logical conclusion. She makes points about what candidates need to do, and then suggests that none of the candidates have done them. She bashes Mittens, but she softens it later and doesn’t really stick her head out for one of the candidates. She then promotes the idea that this brokered convention could actually be a positive experience, even though there’s no evidence that some RINO isn’t going to cheat his way into the Presidency. I assumed it was part of her contract with Fox that she had to be utterly objective and avoid bashing any one candidate too much, since I had no other explanation for her commentary. However, the thought did occur to me, even before this rag picked it up, that maybe she thinks she has a chance at the nomination in a brokered convention.
I am utterly against it. I do not believe that the convention is guaranteed to go her way even if she believes it. And number two, I’m against the idea of some candidate getting the nod who didn’t participate in this bloody primary. It seems unethical.
I am not a mind reader so I can’t say anything with any certainty, but her commentary certainly would leave some paranoid people, such as myself, just wondering where she stands. She might not be an evil Machiavelli, (and yes, Machiavelli actually was a supporter of a Republican form of government and a great historian. I consider his Discourses on Livy to be required reading.) but she has a lot of supporters who are in her ear telling her that she can take over at the convention.