Posted on 08/06/2011 1:05:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If Perry, Pawlenty, and Romney are all in, that's three two term governors (Perry is actually 3 terms). I guess it'd have to be Perry. If Palin is in, it's probably still Perry for me, but who knows. Palin can still win me over if she runs, but she'll have her work cut out.
At a time when national polls show that the generic republican candidate beats Obama (or are close), I would tend to discount a poll that suggests that no Republican can beat Obama in Virginia. Yes, we have a lot of public employees, but Virginia don't like Obama any more than the rest of the country.
Upon reading the actual survey results, the PPP folks seem to have gone out of their way to pretend Perry was already in the race — not one mention of Perry suggests he isn’t a candidate yet.
I also kind of question who they talked to. We have a sitting Lt. Governer who won two statewide elections by a good margin, and yet the people the PPP polled, 59% said they had no idea who Bolling was. Apparently they weren’t voters.
BTW, Palin does very well in the favorable/unfavorables, better than all the other listed Presidential candidates, and almost as good as former Senator George Allen.
Oddest thing — Rick Perry actually gets a higher percentage of support if Palin is included. It’s not just that other candidates lose support to Palin, it’s that Perry goes from 18% to 20% when Palin is in the race.
I’d like to meet the people polled who picked Perry, but when asked who they would vote for if Palin wasn’t in the race, SWITCHED their votes to another candidate.
So it seems like if Palin doesn’t run, her supporters add 6% to Bachmann, 2% to Gingrich, Romney, and “undecided”, 1% to Huntsmann, Paul, and Pawlenty, and -2% to Perry.
What I have said, and what is NOT hypocritical, is that she so far has done nothing to prepare for a nomination fight. She has no state organizations that are up and running, she not only has not really cultivated the state party organizations---which, despite what anyone things here, are absolutely necessary to win both the nomination and the election---but she has deliberately ignored most of them (I think she did meet with NH).
You can assert that I'm wrong (so far, without any evidence to the contrary other than an "unconventional" campaign---i.e., no campaign), but not hypocritical. I've stated my views for months.
Course, that happened to be one of the most important presidents in history. John Quincy Adams was never elected to anything, only appointed to a senate seat: Garfield was only a congressman; Ike, never elected to anything.
Presidents Garfield and Eisenhower were generals, which gives them executive experience in spades.
All you need to do is pay attention to Palin’s record.
Many who think they don’t like Palin have in fact confused themselves, thinking Tina Fey is Sarah Palin. This is actually good news for you. Tina Fey would be a very bad president, I’m quite certain.
But to oppose someone like Palin who has proven herself to be a problem solver, a promise keeper and a fighter would make no sense whatsoever. Especially in times like now—when a person with these three qualities is the only kind that can do what’s needed in the White House.
Hey, freak...
I don’t watch television. I’m familiar with Palin’s abbreviated record. She’s underqualified.
If Palin’s underqualified, there has never in all of history been anyone who is qualified.
She meets the technical qualifications—there are scant requirements. For me, I want a two-term governor. Less than one term in AK doesn’t cut it for me.
And of course we’ve had several presidents who had strong resumes. GWB was a two term Governor. GHWB was VP, and headed the CIA. RR was a two term governor. Ike was supreme commander in WW2. Coolidge was Governor than VP. There’s a long list of GOP presidents with better qualifications than Mrs. Palin.
None of them have a better record of taking a strong stand on a moral issue, at great personal risk while in political office, than Sarah Palin. Maybe equal for one or two, but not better.
Palin did what she did because it was right, and for no other reason.
This is what’s missing in political leaders today. Not empty titles or a record of being “moderate.”
If there is one problem today causing all the mess we’re in today—and I mean the whole mess—it’s the failure of politicians to do what’s right for the sole reason that it’s right.
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.