On Sep 1, 10:49Â pm, Governor Swill
gmail.com> wrote:>>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. Â
I don't know, but I think that if you look up "odious" on wikipedia,
Greasy Joe's picture is there.
> She's under investigation by her own government
Yes, she has been for a while. I am assuming the McCain
campaign was aware of the investigation and decided she
would win. And just getting the news to talk about McCain
instead of Obama is a victory for them.
> and a 17 year old daughter who's six months pregnant.
Who's allegedly engaged to the father.
>>> 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. Â 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.
Inflationary pressures are on the rise, to be sure. Bernanke
will likely have to tighten monetary policy. Such an action
would surely cause a real recession.
>>> 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. Â Achieve 60%% in both Houses, unlikely.
It is usually the case that whichever party is in the whitehouse
loses seats in the Congress.
>> Â What would the Congress
>>> be after another 4 years of Republican control in the White House?
>
> A moot point. Â Moving on . . .
I don't know. After all, Obama has given us Biden. It's not
as if Obama was going to get the Jewish vote anyway, though.
>>> 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.
Or, rather, but for Bush and Katrina. It was assuredly Katrina
that torpedoed the credibility of the Administration irreparably.
Sure, the Administration fucked up Iraq, seeming to do nothing
about impending civil war for years prior to the surge, but if it
hadn't been for Katrina, McCain might have been able to select
Condoleeza as VP.
>>> 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.
Or even assuming Hillary runs a better campaign next time
around. 2012 is probably her last chance. She won't even
get that chance unless either 1.) Obama loses in '08, or
2.) he's so unpopular in 2012 that she wins the primary
against him. Another LBJ sort of thing. It's probably a
given that he'll be a one term president, in any case.
>>> 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. Â The key is the Senate and
> approval of judges. Â The GOP pushed hard to keep control and got three
> conservatives on the bench. Â 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. Â Or they may simply be counting on controlling the Congress so
> aren't worried that much about the WH this time. Â 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. Â
There are those who claim otherwise. Defeat from the jaws
of such allegedly inevitable victory could be disastrous. It
surely means that the Left will lose face in the Democratic
party, paving the way for Hillary again.
> 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.
If the Republicans lose this time, the party will have to regroup,
and if Allah is merciful, Romney will be forgotten.
>>I really doubt this. Â 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. Â Hillary voters aren't church
> going or soap watching. Â
Actually, they are Oprah-watching. A huge chunk of them, anyway.
In fact, Oprah's audience was rather nonplussed that she endorsed
Obama (they naturally assumed it was only because he was black,
after all). Anyway, all the pro-Hillary types I know said they
were voting for McThuselah even before Palin came into the picture.
> Most of them are very independent and many
> are outright feminists. Â Palin offends this last group and isn't going
> to cut much ice with the independents.
Well, the big problem is that McCain picked a pro-lifer. Sad
to say. Of course, all independents know that pro-life is just
a carrot and that nothing can be done about it. But the more
doctrinaire, purist feminists will no doubt be offended.
>>He also needed someone who was better looking even than
>>Obama. Â The real problem with Palin is she is pro-life. Â 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.
I doubt it. At least she's marrying the father. Who says that's
trashy? It's about time Americans grew up and realized that
nobody should marry anybody they haven't had sex with. Yeah,
that's when you find out she's frigid.
>>> 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. Â She will be far too old, and her ass
>>will be far too big in 2016 to run. Â 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. Â But Obama will do. Â It's
> spankin' time!
See, that's where a defeat for the Dems is a bigger deal than
a defeat for the Pugs.
> 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/
