> I've been thinking about the choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican
> cadidate for Vice-President in Novemeber 2008. No experience, no
> electoral votes, no appeal to anyone other than the right wing of the
> Party, currently being investigated for corruption as Governor of an
> insignificant, isolated state. And something has occurred to me. I
> would have been a better choice for Vice President. So would you. So
> would anyone. Anyone would have been more useful on the Republican
> ticket than Sarah Palin. It's not easy to totally torpedo a
> Presidential campaign with a merely poor choice for Vice-President.
> You have to choose someone totally, and completely odious to the vast
> majority of the electorate. And you can't do that by accident. The
> Republicans want to lose in November.
>
> And, it's not hard to see why. As it is, the Congress, both the House
> and the Senate, will be 60%% Democrat in 2009. What would the Congress
> be after another 4 years of Republican control in the White House? It
> would be 75%% Democratic. Democrats would outnumber Republicans three
> to one. Republicans could never recover from this great a deficit in
> Congress, they would cease to exist as a Party when the Democrats
> finally retook the White House in 2012. And, the Republicans will not
> let this happen. They need to have a Democrat in the White House for
> the next four years, to allow them to recover some seats in
> Congress. So they are sitting this election out, quite
> deliberately.
>
> In other words, if by some extraordinary circumstance the choice of
> this right wing bimbo isn't sufficient to turn off the electorate, the
> Republicans will come up with something else. Two weeks before the
> election, we may hear that John McCain was actually turned by the Viet
> Cong when he was a POW, and he has been a Communist agent ever
> since. Or, that half the current leadership in Vietnam are his
> children. Or, that Barack Obama is, actually, his love child.
> Whatever it takes.