As I sat with my extended family on Christmas, we discussed how beatable Barack Obama is. And as I listened to them run through the litany of reasons why this is so, I could only say again: “If the Republicans nominate a true conservative for president, Barack Obama is done.” As it is impossible for his record to hold up to the scrutiny that a Reagan-like candidate would subject it to, so too it is equally impossible to diminish the energy and support Tea Partiers would bring were they to throw their weight behind a candidate who’s not just a “fiscal conservative” or a “social conservative” but a real life conservative through and through: Someone who is pro-tax cut and pro-life, pro-spending cuts and pro-traditional marriage, as well as pro-military and pro-victory in the war on terror. Granted, there aren’t many candidates that fit this bill. Romney certainly doesn’t, Huntsman couldn’t, and Ron Paul’s views on our military efforts overseas and our culpability in the 9/11 attacks raise disturbing questions.
Moreover, Paul’s seeming indifference toward the plight of Israel, an indifference some construe as animosity, will be more and more problematic for him when it is better publicized.
Of course, conservatives could think about Gov. Rick Perry, a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms without nuances, a man who loves our military, despises big government, and understands that our enemies attacked us on 9/11 because they hate us: and that they hate us because the heritage of our Judeo-Christian culture is freedom.
When Perry entered the race, he proved he had the capacity to rally grassroots supporters in a way that none before him, save Gov. Sarah Palin, had been capable of doing. He has flaws, and I have not been shy about highlighting those when they came to my attention. However, he is consistently pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-God, and pro-states’ rights. When talking to friends about Perry I’ve said, “He never met a tax cut he didn’t like.” Does he debate well? Who cares. Honestly, the debates have proven to be almost fixed, as the moderators give more time to their favorites or those they consider front-runners, and that effectively shuts out others (Perry included). Besides, I’m looking for a Commander-in-Chief not a debater-in-chief.
Yet if Perry fails to get traction, we will have to look elsewhere.
Enter Palin. She’s a conservative, she’s proud of her country, she’d be a strong ally for Israel, and she’s beautiful: for these reasons the left hates her. They actually fear her, but they present it as hate to keep from showing their weakness. And I don’t see any reason why see can’t reassess the field and enter the race, in the event Perry fails to regain traction or if no other candidate jumps in. It seems that Palin agrees with this assessment, as just last Monday she said: “It's not too late for folks to jump in. Who knows what will happen in the future."
I honestly believe Perry or Palin would be a nightmare scenario for Obama. And as I’ve watched Perry speak on the fly, and heard his conviction, I’ve continued to hope he regains traction. But if he doesn’t, I hope Palin will jump in and “fight like a girl” so we can have a conservative in the White House again.
Palin could do to Obama what Reagan did to Carter, times ten. And who wouldn’t pay to see her look Obama in the eye during a debate and say: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours, and a recovery is when [Barack Obama] loses his.”