I wasn't a huge fan of Angle during the 2010 elections. I wanted Tarkanian for Senate.
I have always maintained that it's better to lose an election with a solid, constitutional candidate than win with a baseless, shifty RINO. Once you define the playing field, and define the players, the end game is that much easier to plan for.
I love the fact that the "middle" is fast becoming a minefield instead of a comfortable fence. This allows us to properly define, then frame the argument from a rock-solid, constitutional base, as opposed to a compromisable, hence corruptable, position that can ONLY be manipulated by the Democrats in their favor. Obama was NOT elected just by the left; he was put in place by the spineless, manipulative middle.
And make NO MISTAKE. Tea party candidates will not back down.
In short, though she didn't win, Sharron Angle was JUST as big a player in the recent election as any Tea Party winner. The key here is that Angle may have been a loser, but her actions in running both in the primary upset of the RINO, but running a relatively close race against the Senate Majority leader was just as significant a "team effort" as any of the Tea Party winners. For that, Angle will always be in play.
But president? No. It DOES take some experience at a nationally reviewable level to credentialize onself to a national audience. Palin currently has the most credentials along with her bonafide commitment to Tea Party principles, and it is up to others in the movement to challenge her for that spot in next year's primary.
