On Sep 17, 2:50Â am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Sep 17, 2:24Â am, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> On Sep 16, 9:16 pm, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:>>>> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>> On Sep 16, 6:19 pm, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:>>>>>> She is the best person available in all the Republican Party for the
>>>>>> position of VP Candidate.
>
>>>>>> This I find quite encouraging in the longer term.
>
>>>>> The Sarah Palin Phenomenon is doomed.
>
>>>>> But it's not because of her lack of foreign policy experience or her
>>>>> deer-in-the-headlights look during part of her interview last week
>>>>> with ABC's Charles Gibson.
>
>>>>> The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media
>>>>> will decide that they are bored with her. They'll need to move to
>>>>> shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.
>
>>>>> This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether
>>>>> the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we
>>>>> inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable
>>>>> proportions. Then we knock them down.
>
>
>
>>>> whilst that's true, what's more insightful to me, is how the republicans
>>>> &
>>>> their supporters themselves saw her. As in the many "doorstop" queries
>>>> put
>>>> to individuals and their comments. And it's still going on "how well she
>>>> represents" them and their values etc.
>
>>>> So it's a stop and think moment for me --- out of all the currently
>>>> available and potentially qualified Republicans out there, and there's
>>>> thousands of them, Sarah Palin is the *best available*?
>
>>> 1. Obama didn't pick Hillary, 2. to ralley the party faithful, and 3.
>>> when someone less attractive is with someone attractive the less
>>> attractive one seems more attractive.
>
>> That's true. and that's exactly what I mean.
>
>> It clarifies what "best for America" means to most Republicans, their
>> supporters, and McCain in particular.
>
> If I were a Dem ad writer I would point out that Obama, under enormous
> pressure by a large and radical group within his party,
Ew, a large _and_ radical group. Heh. That would have
been the group of Democrats who wanted to win the
general election, I guess.
> did not cave
> by selecting Hillary.
That's right. He stuck to his guns and picked a
nondescript old guard career legislator who
wanted to turn Iraq into a number of different
republics along ethnic/religious lines. That's
Change You Can Track on Google.
> And of course Honorable John *did* cave to the
> same fundamentalists he condemned 8 years ago.
And yet, somehow, he's popped the Obama market
bubble in doing so. Perhaps he is a more gifted
diplomat than you give him credit for.
> I don't know how vindictive that camp would have been had he chosen
> someone like Lieberman or Ridge, but it would surely have helped him
> with true independents and crossover Dems.
Who else would the pro-lifers vote for?
> Since I don't think the 'base strategy' can work this time
> (numerically),
The base strategy is always a loser numerically.
The key is to get the base without offending the
center (which is 47%% of the vote.) The McCain
ticket isn't going to excite the fundies much anyhow,
but the constant barrage of nastiness towards Palin
by the usual suspects has served the purpose of
causing the base to circle the wagons. The enemy
of my enemies can't help but be my friend anyway.
> I would expect some *really* nasty stuff from the
> independent groups attacking Obama towards the end.
Yeah. Well, we have a constant barrage of nasty
stuff against Palin right now, and it may even
continue long enough to make McCain president.
The nasty stuff isn't what wins elections anyway.
Hell, what was the nastiest thing in 2004? W
was accused in an In Search Of... style movie,
F-911, of being in bed with Osama. Does it
really get nastier than that. The left thinks Kerry
lost because of the swiftboat ads, when the
reality is... he lost because he was perceived
as a tax-hiker.
