Redstate Contributing Editor Endorses Shares His Opinion On Palin

Bill S. opines:

What do we need in a good candidate? There are some who say that executive experience is key to a candidate’s viability. Others believe that a strong conservative record is the most important attribute. And others think that “toughness”, a “fighting spirit” and a “confrontational manner” is what we need in the White House, in order to beat up the Left, promote the conservative cause and bring the nation back out of the ditch. Problem is: the current GOP field seems to be devoid of candidates that simultaneously possess all of the key attributes.
...
With the low odds of a knight in shining armor appearing to save the GOP, I am inclined to support a candidate who is most likely to make the Democrats squirm and who is most likely to expose the Left’s true colors of hate and divisiveness. Who might that be? Which candidate can do the most damage to the Left?

Sarah Palin.
...
As an opponent to Obama, Palin can be expected to fight - hard. She has pulled no punches in her criticisms of Obama since he took office. Palin is fantastic at getting under the skin of the Left with her communication. Her coining of the term “Death Panels” was a brilliant display of political communication. We need a candidate that can connect with common people…that doesn’t happen by asking voters if they know what Whole Foods charges for arugula or by babbling incessantly about windmills or by condescendingly suggesting that potential voters should sell their minivans to buy a non-existent hybrid van. No, connecting with people happens by distilling complex issues into words that people understand and relate to. Palin’s speeches, and even her essays on Facebook, connect with people.

You can read the whole article here. The author makes a compelling case for Palin. His reasoning is precisely the reason I settled on Palin as my candidate in the first place, with the possible exception being that I do believe she actually has a fairly good chance of winning.

This article caught me by surprise and is a huge development, especially given RedState's history with Palin. (It's why I was banned.) Which explains Bill's hesitancy to be seen hanging out with the kids from the wrong side of the tracks, despite his cogent arguments:

(Disclaimer: This is not an official Redstate endorsement. It’s just Bill’s opinion, intended to provoke thought and discussion, and not even necessarily to make my own personal endorsement…)

It's disheartening to hear such double talk and equivocating from a site that is otherwise known for it's bold stances ("Palin? Who me?"). However, like Peter, Bill can ultimately be forgiven. (Easter reference - no I'm not comparing Palin to Jesus.) It's at the very least a good first step for Redstate in admitting what I have known all along: should Palin run, she would emerge as the frontrunner - able to unify the right against Obama. She's a fighter and 100% Tea Party, yet has enough experience in the GOP to eventually win over the support of more establishment types. We can only hope that one day when it becomes more politically palatable, Bill will be able to stand up to the naysayers at Redstate. Now if only Palin would make up her mind about running!