Because if the political climate changes while Palin is President, we know she will continue to do what is right even though it isn’t popular.
This is a non-sequiter from Friedman's point. The only thing that matters is the political climate where bad people are forced to do good. Without it, good people that do good fail and are voted out.
Perhaps you should invert your screen name to 'faithisreason'? It seems that once you believe something, you're going to keep bending the facts around it until it fits. I get that you really, really like Palin, but sitting around hoping for white knights to ride in and save the day is not what our system of government was designed for.
Perry has his flaws, but he's not a 'wrong' thinker. He's just not always right, and needs to be corrected now and then. That attention is vital to the functioning of our democratic republic. Palin may be more 'right', but the idea that she's better because she wouldn't need to be watched is exactly the wrong attitude for us to take. Our engagement is the only thing that makes the system work.
Maybe Friedman’s ideas can be expanded. (Unless we want to put 100% faith in Friedman, without engaging and applying our own thinking.)
Logic tells us that if the political climate favors conservatism, a conservative with the highest integrity is not going to be worse than a RINO.
And what I’m trying to tell you is that reason alone shows us that a RINO will stop advancing conservatism as soon as it is unpopular, while a Sarah Palin will continue to advance it against the political winds.
So in the Friedman-inspired discussion, we can see that electing a conservative to office, in a climate which favors conservatism, will help to advance conservatism for a longer period of time than electing a RINO in the same political climate.