Ah jeez, not this again…
She said no. Leave it at that.
Outside of Gingrich (who has no real chance) the rest of the field look like characters from a Fellini film.
Sarah is our best (and probably ONLY) chance.
No
The ultimate flip-flop!
There is no practical way to draft any one candidate. The candidates must go through the primary process and win delegates. There is no “drafting authority”. Only other way is if there is a deadlock at convention.
No. She’s doing exactly what she should be doing, party-building. It’s under the radar enough that the MSM are leaving her alone (compared to when she was a candidate), and she’s got the right positions and the right abilities for talking to the base.
Now that the cult that used to surround her seems to have simmered down, it’s relatively safe to point out the simple fact that the MSM attacks on her worked—she is disliked by many of the center we’d need to get her in the White House, and the dems in DC would spend 4-8 years fighting her every step of the way. We don’t have to like it to acknowledge reality.
Her quitting the governorship (we all know the reasons) was a very, very bad move if she wanted to be considered president. It also wasn’t the first time she did such a thing.
I don’t think she’d be a good president for various reasons, but there are countless people I like and admire who wouldn’t be, either.
BUT...she is the one person who seems to be able to break through with Republicans and get them to support Tea Party candidates. She is irreplacable in the unofficial position she’s in now, and she truly needs to stay where she is, working at building the party with conservatives, keeping the country clubbers at bay.
So...no.
Sarah said no and I take her at her word.
Still, she’d be very good in a lot of ways. She’s a tough cookie. She can energize a crowd like no one I’ve seen in 30 years or so. She’ll be a force.
Don't count Palin out. She said recently that she could be persuaded to reconsider her decision if she saw an "earthquake" develop. Many of her supporters heard her say that, and immediately responded with a flood of postcards and letters, begging her to reconsider her decision.
Now, even her brother Chuck is trying to get her to change her mind.
Visit Sarah Palin's Earthquake Movement on Facebook, if you'd like to join those who are trying to persuade her to change her mind.
I do hope so.
I have come to the same conclusion myself. I was having all of the conventional wisdom thoughts about Sarah myself. Too devisive, too damaged by the MSM, etc. But things are changing fast, thanks in part to the OWS moonbats. I think the time is perfect for her to get in. What? Newt, Cain (whom I like, but big ???), Romney, Perry? I mean c’mon. Let’s think this through. If Obama can’t win, which he can’t. Who would you rather have for President? I’d take Sarah, she would put a “Scott Walker” on D.C.
If the time comes and she decides to go for it, I’m there in a heartbeat. But until she’s ready to do it, it does her or us no good to demand of her things she is not yet ready to give.
Obviously I reevaluated after she announced that she wasn't running. But considering that she didn't make the Sherman declaration, "If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve," a call for a draft is still a valid position. And that is why my tagline stands as I called it almost 2 years ago when I considered that to be the only way to be sure of having a solid conservative nominee.
Obviously it's more of an uphill thing than I would have hoped 2 years ago - but there it is.
Cain is pretty much Palin - but without the national political experience of the past few years, and without the "Governor" credential in front of her name. Cain is now going through what she has already been through. It's the same MIckey Mouse stuff. No matter what "harassment" some handful of women may have claimed, we know for sure that he isn't Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, and probably not even John Edwards. And we know how much weight those "peccadilloes" were given with those Democrats. It's the same old thing; if you see a news article about a politician's corruption, that politician is probably a Democrat - and if the political party of the offender isn't given in the story you know it's a Democrat.
The only way to attempt to be objective is to be open about all the reasons you can see why you might not be objective . . . which is precisely the opposite of claiming to be objective. Since wire service journalists all claim that all journalists are objective (their business model depends on that claim), obviously wires service journalists are not even trying to be objective. Democrat politicians simply align themselves with the political tendency of the journalistic profession (i.e., that journalists are pure as the driven snow, and the only reason why anyone is ever honest) - meaning that the government, guided by professional complainers, should take over the role of deciding who gets what. Rather than accepting the verdict of the people as expressed in markets, the critics rather than "the man in the arena" are to be given the credit according to the vision of the Democrat/journalist.
It'll be that much more crucial to have the right congress as tea partiers and Republicans are doing their best to ensure a poor candidate against Obama.
I sure am.
Her buoyancy is contagious.
That said it's my opinion she won't accept a draft, but who knows.