“I’m not trying to be unnecessarily cryptic. I just didn’t want to indicate my personal preference for president, because you’re so obviously promoting a Rand Paul draft.
We only just started talking. It’s not my style to start advocating for my preferences so early with someone.”
I don’t really understand that, but alright. If I’ve just heard from you and you’re saying no to Rand Paul, I think it’s reasonable to ask who then. Not specific to you personally, but it can be too easy sometimes just to pick at perceived imperfections, especially when whatever those perceived imperfections are, the great flaw is that he’s just not your preferred, already decided candidate.
I probably like Palin for the same reasons you do, and high up there is her executive experience. If executive experience were the single deciding factor though, the final determinative, Giuliani did a good job here in New York City being the executive over far more people, of far greater representative diversity, than in Alaska and many other states. But I’m just mentioning him as an illustration - I do not support him over Palin, or just about anyone in the field you could name, even with that.
“I honestly can’t see anyone on the right giving her a serious challenge for the nomination, though I’m sure some will try.”
Maybe when this really gets going to state primaries I’ll see that and agree with you, but she hasn’t been as publicly visible, seemingly, for a while now.
I would want to be more sure about her foreign policy before I was as convinced as you - part of the reason we’re in the mess we are now was the ‘anyone but Bush’ sentiment - look how that turned out, and part of that was from how Bush entered without much knowledge of foreign policy, by his own admission - so the people he relied on for this were neo-conservatives, and, disturbingly, supported him early on as a candidate (if I remember right) not in spite of this, but because of this - they could direct things.
So, for me, that’s a concern with Palin, even if I already know she is smarter by far than the vast majority of her detractors. Kristol is a prominent neo-conservative who was recently talking her up, which raises some flags with me. Having another Republican administration whose foreign policy was directed by neo-conservatives is not at all desirable, I think, unless you want in a few years time an even worse situation than the one we’re in now following it.
I'm not "picking at perceived imperfections". I'm stating that the man simply is not ready to take on the job of president. A perceived imperfection would be something on the order of a candidate's failure to strongly support some pet policy of mine. Rand Paul's first disqualification for me, is that he's a freshman Senator, who's only just elected to the Senate. I certainly haven't disqualified him for having the fatal "flaw" of not being my preferred candidate.
I'm not dismissive of Rand Paul. I'm very impressed with him, so far. I think he's going to climb to the very top in the US Senate. He's got the right orientation for America, and will likely be responsible for pushing through some revolutionary legislation during his tenure.
My solitary point in this conversation, is that he isn't ready to be president, for the reasons I first stated. Who's to say that he won't someday work his way up to president by going the executive route? Perhaps he will, but until he's been well-seasoned on the national stage, and gains some experience in running a large city or a state government, I won't be considering supporting him for president.
I'm no less severe when it comes to any other career legislators.
...you’re saying no to Rand Paul, I think it’s reasonable to ask who then.
That's fine, but we weren't talking about my choice for Republican nominee. I initiated this exchange by challenging your support for Rand Paul as a presidential candidate. Now that we're at this point in the conversation, it's more or less a moot point, but you brought it up, so I'm replying.
I would want to be more sure about her foreign policy before I was as convinced as you...
There are only a handful of US presidents you could name who had any depth in foreign policy before they became president. In my view, this is a red herring that's been promoted by the left to cut Palin off at the knees. Note that no one is demanding that ANY other potential candidate meet the same bar.
Reagan was masterful with foreign policy (for the most part), but what experience did he really have dealing with foreign powers before he was president? Precisely none. It's actually hard to gain that sort of experience in any capacity, except as president or Secretary of State. There are also ambassadors, State Dept employees, diplomats, etc., who gain great insight and experience in foreign affairs by way of their jobs, but presidents are rarely drawn from those ranks.
A US president who is going to be successful in his/her foreign policy has to have intangible qualities such as courage, conviction, trustworthiness, savvy, strong core values, and of course, a good general knowledge of geopolitics. Those things, and an absolute first allegiance to the American people, are what makes for successful foreign policy. Not some mythical wonkishness.
I wouldn't worry about Palin in this regard. She knows the difference between an ally and an enemy, and she has all of the above attributes in spades. She'll do just fine.