"Since the nomination is hers for the taking..."
There you go with the coronation talk. You won't even allow for the idea she may stumble or implode.
Successfully or otherwise, I think she needs to run so people can get it out of their systems.
I am pessimistic about the GOP's chances to beat Obama regardless of the nominee. Obama's failures will be measured by a different standard than W or Carter or any prior president. He'll be reelected by white guilt affirmative action. If an opponent cannot get Obama judged on his record, rather than his race, he'll be back to terrorize the nation for four more years.
Saw this on C4P and cut and pasted below. It actually makes some sense:
Thought of the day: I love the memo out there about Palin and Bachman appealing to the same people. I will confess that Bachman, in theory, appeals to some of the same social conservatives to whom Palin appeals. BUT, this really misses a big group of people out there to whom Palin appeals: The pro growth, free market populist crowd. Go ask an Eric Bolling or a Larry Kudlow or a James Pethokoukis or the WSJ or IBD editorial pages why they like her, and it has NOTHING to do with Palin’s personal socially conservative convictions. It’s got everything to do with her stands for free markets against the crony capitalists, her strong dollar beliefs, her emphasis on small business and less regulation gamed against small businesses, and her energy policies.
Frankly, I’m in that group. I like Palin’s socially conservative credentials. BUT, what makes her unique is this free market populist approach, because it’s what gives her transcendent political appeal. I keep saying it: If this is how she approaches a campaign, if she lets her social conservatism speak for itself (like she did in Alaska and simply because it does), if she pivots everything back to the economy and just ignores the distracting and distorted BS (leave it to her supporters), then her message will get out, is powerful, and is persuasive.
I’m telling you, this is what they really fear. Think back to when she was nominated and Obama’s internal polls had them in a panic. It wasn’t her social conservatism that caused it. It was her transcendent, free market populist message. For years, Democrats have identified crony capitalism (of one side, of course), and presented more government as the solution. The Republican response for the last two decades has been “well, we’ll do that, just for a little less money”. Sometimes it works, when the opponent is weak or when, in 2000, there was the inevitable Clinton fatigue and search for change. Usually, it doesn’t.
And, this is why Obama’s “people” say “Romney or Pawlenty can give us a run”, because Romney and Pawlenty will give you a healthy dose of “thousand points of light” and “compassionate conservatism”. But, end of the day, with the media on their side and no savaging of Romney or Pawlenty done, his people see those two like I suspect Rove saw Kerry (someone who could give Bush a run but would lose in the end).
Palin, by contrast, makes things unpredictable. On the one hand, if they can distract her and get her to take the bait, then she probably is easier for them to beat than Romney or Pawlenty. On the other hand, if Palin doesn’t take the bait, if she dusts off the Alaska playbook and runs as a free market populist in the name of small businesses, the middle class, and the poor against the crony capitalism of the establishment, then that message could transcend anything they can do (see “death panels” for an example) . . . and, that, my friends, is (a) what makes Palin a hell of a lot more than comparable to Bachman and (b) always has scared the Obama people about Palin.
EDIT: Put another way, they want her to re-run the McCain campaign. IMO, she transcends if she runs the 2006 governor’s race.
It's not coronation talk, it's just my sincere assessment of the situation. Analyzing the situation politically, I believe the nomination is indeed hers for the taking, and I think that will be borne out if Sarah decides to run.