When liberals fear conservative candidates they term them as being stupid. The most successful candidate ever offered, Ronald Reagan, was called a stupid B-actor. A Republican who also won two terms as president, and is now fondly thought of, George Bush, was always called a dunce and a cowboy and laughed at for his verbal slips. And the most reviled possible candidate to date is Sarah Palin, whom the press has abused more severely than any in living memory, simply from their fear of her successful record and fear that she could win. (The liberals even go so far as to make similar references of stupidity to foreign leaders who are closely allied to America; for example their reference to Benjamin Netanyahu as Benjamin Netanyahoo).
Of course Anthony Weiner's actions are not a result of stupidity (one pundit even called his tweeting a result of intelligence because he's working on a much more elevated plain that the rest of us and he needs his outlets); John Edwards isn't called stupid for his predicament; Bill Clinton isn't called stupid in spite of his abuse of an intern and his occasional use of the back-country, Ozark term "might-could"; Barney Frank isn't called stupid for his inability to see and halt or at least control the crash of Freddie and Fannie and the whole disastrous aftermath of the housing tumble; Chris Dodd isn't called stupid for taking favored loans from the mortgage companies he was responsible for overseeing. These people's actions caused great tragedy for our nation, but are topped by Barack Obama whose every action has caused increased joblessness, homelessness, national debt and misery that will set our nation back for decades if we ever get out from under the burden with which he has loaded children, and this fool still wants more quantitative easing and continues to promise further billions in foreign loans and gifts so as to further bury us under debt and undermine the value of the dollar. But, of course, Obama is the brilliant graduate of Columbia and Harvard and his superior intelligence must be recognized and expounded upon at every opportunity. The liberals seem to have forgotten the Forrest Gump admonition that "stupid is, as stupid does", which sums up our Barry perfectly.
Just as the old Jay Leno joke had it that Burger King and McDonalds will only compare each other's products in their commercials, because they don't dare compare their products with real food, so the Democrats/liberals/progressives always offer their candidates as being more intelligent than conservatives , but they won't dare make a comparison of policy and the real-life decisions of liberals versus conservatives (the best example of this reluctance to study conservative success and liberal failure is that the lowering of taxes under Ronald Reagan, and JFK as well in an earlier time, increased revenue to the treasury, but we saw debt increase at the same time because the legislature spent money at a 3-to-1 rate over the new revenue. So it appears that Reagan's "stupid" tax reductions caused a deficit problem, when in truth it was the stupid, over-spending of the legislature, largely composed of Democrats, that caused the trouble).
Democrats and their allies in the press always try to set Republicans up for failure by praising our more middle-of-the-road candidates, thereby encouraging these weaker candidates to run. John McCain is an example, who, with the praise of the press, became a candidate who conservatives could not vigorously support, and then in the general election they savaged him in support of Obama, who was their candidate of choice all along.
Conservatives must stick to the real conservative candidates and not be suckered into another bad presidential candidate just because the press seems to favor that candidate. Because of the constant abuse of the press we know they fear Sarah Palin more than any other Republican because she's the real thing: she's had successful executive experience, unlike Obama who has seen only constant executive failures, and she knows why the things she believes are the correct policies and can explain them (lower taxes and fewer regulations, for example) unlike Obama, who doesn't have a clue why his policies are failing and destroying the futures of our grandchildren, but insists on doing more of the same destructive things that have already failed (except that I believe Obama is intentionally destroying America, and his actions can only support the notion that he has such a clear, willful, immoral intent).
So Republicans must offer their best candidates, and in fact should offer candidates whom the liberals criticize the most (perhaps a Bachman-Palin Overdrive ticket would be powerful, or a Bachman-Herman Cain ticket, either of which would combine legislative and executive experience) but whomever the candidate is for 2012, we must not go again with a McCain candidate whom the liberals say would be easy for them to work with. We need to defeat liberals, not work with them. A McCain-like candidate is the path to defeat in 2012, and an Obama re-election in 2012 would be the certain destruction of this nation.