>On Aug 30, 7:19Â am, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>> I've been thinking about the choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican
>> cadidate for Vice-President in Novemeber 2008. Â 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. Â And something has occurred to me. Â I
>> would have been a better choice for Vice President. Â So would you. Â So
>> would anyone. Â Anyone would have been more useful on the Republican
>> ticket than Sarah Palin. Â 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. Â
>
>You mean, someone like Joe Biden?
He means Sarah Palin. She's under investigation by her own government
and a 17 year old daughter who's six months pregnant.
>> And you can't do that by accident. Â The
>> Republicans want to lose in November.
>
>It seemed to me that the Democrats wanted to lose
>in November, when Obama selected Joe Biden.
It's hard to tell which side is trying harder to lose than the other.
That frightens me. Either they think we're really stupid, or that the
next four years are going to be a nightmare nobody wants to be
responsible for.
>> And, it's not hard to see why. Â As it is, the Congress, both the House
>> and the Senate, will be 60%% Democrat in 2009.
Gain seats, probably. Achieve 60%% in both Houses, unlikely.
> Â What would the Congress
>> be after another 4 years of Republican control in the White House?
A moot point. Moving on . . .
>> Â It would be 75%% Democratic. Â Democrats would outnumber Republicans three
>> to one.
The GOP would probably still hold Congress but for Bush and Iraq.
>> Â 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.
Assuming the worst economically or another bad run in the field.
>> Â And, the Republicans will not let this happen.
>> Â They need to have a Democrat in the White House for
>> the next four years, to allow them to recover some seats in
>> Congress. Â So they are sitting this election out, quite
>> deliberately.
I think GOP losses in Congress are inevitable and McCain could not be
the stalwart Party man they might hope. The key is the Senate and
approval of judges. The GOP pushed hard to keep control and got three
conservatives on the bench. The salvation of America is that even if
the GOP wins the WH, they will not pack the court with any more
conservatives, unless they lose the Senate.
On the flip side, the Dems may be pessimistic about the immediate
future. Or they may simply be counting on controlling the Congress so
aren't worried that much about the WH this time. It's the perfect
time to elect a black guy or a woman even if she is Hillary Clinton.
For the Party, it's a win-win even if they lose. They get to at least
approve the next two justices, control the Congress and if the
opportunity arises, put somebody, possibly Hillary up against Romney
in 2012.
>I really doubt this. It seems that McCain selected a woman
>to help suck away disgruntled Oprah-watching Hillary voters.
That may be why, but it won't work. Hillary voters aren't church
going or soap watching. Most of them are very independent and many
are outright feminists. Palin offends this last group and isn't going
to cut much ice with the independents.
>He also needed someone who was better looking even than
>Obama. The real problem with Palin is she is pro-life. I
>think a pro-choice woman would have helped him more.
Be that as it may, Bristol Palin's pregnancy is going to put off a lot
of social conservatives who consider that trashy behavior.
>> 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. Â 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. Â Or, that half the current leadership in Vietnam are his
>> children. Â Or, that Barack Obama is, actually, his love child.
>> Whatever it takes.
>
>I find all of this ironic, considering Obama selected Biden.
>The Clintons, Inc., of course, will have no interest in a
>victory for Obama. She will be far too old, and her ass
>will be far too big in 2016 to run. She needs Obama to
>lose in 2008, to leave the Party open to her talons in
>2012.
I'd like to have seen her make it this year. But Obama will do. It's
spankin' time!
Swill
--
It's a good thing Palin's a member of the NRA
'cause she's got a shotgun wedding coming up.
Picture ofthe day:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/
