Palin definitely teased it out for a long time and probably misled quite a few believing souls. In the end, she did just what she did in AK--walked away.
It's possible that she originally intended to run, but that circumstances gave way under her feet. Either the poll numbers, or possibly her family relations. That would explain the delay and somewhat abrupt statement.
I ruled out Christie and Palin a long time ago. I forced myself to see the field as is. I saw a lot of people repeating the 2008 self-denial, refusing to believe that what you see is what you get. And I can understand why. As in 2008, it's a hard swallow to accept that this is the best the GOP or the Tea Party has to offer.
Romney sits as the last resort default choice. No one likes him, which is why people like Charen were pining for Daniels ( I liked him too, though he also has his flaws), or Christie, or Ryan, etc.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party went from Bachmann, then some went to Perry, and now perhaps coalescing around Mr. National Sales Tax. Shades of Sharon Angle.
The big story to me is that the GOP and conservatives in the Tea Party have utterly failed to put up a solid, experienced, talented leader.
I can't disagree with you there. Daniels was also my choice until he said no.
The problem stems back from 2006 and 2008. George Allen lost in 06, and from what I have heard, he was supposed to be the guy for 08. We also lost a lot of gubernatorial races in 06 and 08. We took a lot of them back in 10, but they aren't experienced. Of those who were, John Hoeven (North Dakota) went for the senate instead, and Mike Rounds (South Dakota) retired. Barbour said no. Perry's in. He needs work, but he record isn't bad with the biggest issue, the economy. That gives him a legitimate shot.
Dead wrong, you are just too ignorant to recognize him. L\