I have shared before my hopes that Sarah Palin will take on a role as the new Oprah, leading women and the daytime television crowd back from the precipice of left-wing, new age oblivion. It is frightening that stay at home moms - the ones we depend upon so desperately to raise their children with strong moral values - are being inundated daily with the backwards postmodernism of Oprah and Ellen.
But Palin appears to be on the verge of launching a presidential campaign. This garners mockery from many on the left who say she's unelectable. As Mike Potemra pointed out recently, they've said that before:
And check this out, a random example from the past, from Time magazine of March 22, 1976, well into that election year:
If the election was held today, Gerald Ford would handily defeat any of the major Democratic contenders.
In the contest for his party's nomination, Ford is preferred over Ronald Reagan by a 2-to-1 margin among Republican and independent voters. . . .
Ford would beat [Hubert] Humphrey decisively, 52% to 37%, with 11% undecided. This is a marked improvement for Ford over a TIME poll taken last January, when he led Humphrey, 46% to 40%, with 14% undecided.
Surprisingly, last week's TIME survey finds that Ford would have a tougher time against Carter than against Humphrey. The President would beat the Georgian, 46% to 38%, with 16% undecided. . . .
Good heavens, this Carter guy can't even break 40 against the guy who pardoned Nixon?! He's finished. And as for this two-to-one loser Reagan, he should pack it up for good. No, as I've said here before, the important question is not Can Palin win?-the mood swings of the American people must never be underestimated-but Should she be president?
Yet Democrats crow at the thought of Obama vs. Palin, while establishment Republicans cringe. How foolish.
Honestly, the idea that the American people would reject Palin if she was put up against Obama total bunk. All the Republicans would have to do is paint the picture of what this country would look like had we been blessed with a President Palin these last couple years rather than Obama. That's not too tough to do. Dennis Prager put it this way:
This country would be in considerably better shape if Palin were either vice president or president. Palin would have confronted Iran rather than place her faith in negotiations and the United Nations. She would not have sought to impose a peace on Israel (as if peace can ever be imposed by outsiders on any countries, let alone upon those in which one of the parties seeks to annihilate the other). She would not have bought into Keynesian economics and spent nearly a trillion dollars largely to keep overpaid and overcompensated government workers voting Democrat. She would not have expanded the number of government agencies and "czars" to the point that this country may well be governed for the next two years not by congressional laws but by unelected and unaccountable federal agencies. She would not have declared a date by which America will leave Afghanistan and thereby ensured that fewer and fewer Afghans fight alongside America. She would not have signed a 2,000-page bill about anything, let alone health care. She would have expanded oil drilling in America so that we can actually begin the long journey to energy independence, not the imaginary journey to windmills and solar panels. She would never have considered taxing energy, the engine of our economy, on the increasingly absurd claims that human carbon dioxide emissions will bring the planet to ruin.
Prager's right. Put that in front of the American people, and the man who already has a 40% approval rating could be in big trouble.