The rats fight over Palin

[jerryzflies 0]

www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24392.html

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[quade 4]

And this is the same party that is worried about Democrat "buyer's remorse" with Obama.

Yeah, right.

Palin was and continues to be a disaster for the Republican party. Whoever first suggested her as the VP nominee really needed to be taken out to the woodshed.

I am very surprised that she still gets any support from the Republican party at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Palin was and continues to be a disaster for the Republican party. Whoever first suggested her as the VP nominee really needed to be taken out to the woodshed.

I believe that was William Kristol. Which is why he is now in a public fight with the poor campaign manager who had to try to convince the American public that Gov. Palin was fully capable of running the United States government.

[k-dubjumps 0]

Quote

And this is the same party that is worried about Democrat "buyer's remorse" with Obama.

Yeah, right.

Palin was and continues to be a disaster for the Republican party. Whoever first suggested her as the VP nominee really needed to be taken out to the woodshed.

I am very surprised that she still gets any support from the Republican party at all.

Bravo!!!!!! Well said.

Adrenaline is my crack

DPH #3
D.S. #16 FAG #12 Muff Brother #4406

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Whoever first suggested her as the VP nominee really needed to be taken out to the woodshed.

I'm not a part of her wing of the party, but picking her as the VP nominee was actually a pretty sound choice, tactically.

1) She was a woman. We all know that we'd like to deny that matters, but the fact is that it does matter.

2) She's young and attractive. When you're running an old curmudgeon like John McCain against a young hottie like Barack Obama, you damn sure want some hottie power of your own up on the stage.

3) She's a darling of the evangelical christian right. McCain had zero traction in that camp, and he knew that their activists were critical to the Bush victories. She was his way of getting them to work for him.

Note that I'm not saying I'm a fan of hers, or that I agree with her on much (I do on some things, but not most things). But I think that her selection was a very good tactical choice for the McCain campaign, given their situation.

Pretty much the only negative that comes of that is after the election, when she's been elevated to national spotlight status, and the rest of the GOP has to deal with it. That's a problem, sure, but not the top thing on your mind when you're trying to win the Presidential election.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[redlegphi 0]

By the way, thought you right-wingers on the forum might want to know that Red State is demanding that you prove that you didn't talk to Vanity Fair about Gov. Palin lest they blackball you with "the base" forever and ever infinity squared plus one. Please note that, according to Red State, silence implies that you're a Vanity Fair snitch.

[redlegphi 0]

I don't know how important #1 and #2 were overall to people in this election. I'd wager that they weren't nearly as important as the McCain camp was betting on.
As for #3, while I know the "religious right" was doing all sorts of wailing and moaning about not voting for McCain, I think in the end they probably would have still come out in the same numbers they did. I can't believe they'd just say "fuck it" and let a Democrat win out of spite.

[billvon 3,089]

> But I think that her selection was a very good tactical choice for
>the McCain campaign, given their situation.

Had she been a better overall candidate, it would have been a brilliant move. They just picked the wrong religious hottie.

[quade 4]

Quote

Pretty much the only negative that comes of that is after the election, when she's been elevated to national spotlight status, and the rest of the GOP has to deal with it. That's a problem, sure, but not the top thing on your mind when you're trying to win the Presidential election.

Do you believe she's a good choice for Republican financing to run as the nominee for 2012?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I don't know how important #1 and #2 were overall to people in this election. I'd wager that they weren't nearly as important as the McCain camp was betting on.

I dunno. I could put together a pretty good argument that the election was a lot closer than it would have been had McCain picked Lieberman, or some other more traditional choice.

Quote

As for #3, while I know the "religious right" was doing all sorts of wailing and moaning about not voting for McCain, I think in the end they probably would have still come out in the same numbers they did. I can't believe they'd just say "fuck it" and let a Democrat win out of spite.

Examining other election results tends to indicate that their response would have been to stay home. Politics is not, apparently, their top priority, which means the trick is to get them out to volunteer, and doing that requires something they like.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

> But I think that her selection was a very good tactical choice for
>the McCain campaign, given their situation.

Had she been a better overall candidate, it would have been a brilliant move. They just picked the wrong religious hottie.

To be fair, the other options weren't great either. Bobby Jindal was probably the second choice, and he wasn't a she, isn't nearly so cute (although he's young, which is a big plus), and is Catholic which doesn't tend to motivate the evangelicals as much.

Who would you have suggested to them?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I'm not a part of her wing of the party, but picking her as the VP nominee was actually a pretty sound choice, tactically.

1) She was a woman. We all know that we'd like to deny that matters, but the fact is that it does matter.

2) She's young and attractive. When you're running an old curmudgeon like John McCain against a young hottie like Barack Obama, you damn sure want some hottie power of your own up on the stage.

3) She's a darling of the evangelical christian right. McCain had zero traction in that camp, and he knew that their activists were critical to the Bush victories. She was his way of getting them to work for him.

All true, but those reasons were also completely transparent to the public, and it showed just how desperate the GOP was.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 3,089]

>To be fair, the other options weren't great either.

True. I think Jindal would have resulted in less of a bump initially (less sexy) but a better performance in the long term (less scary.)

>Who would you have suggested to them?

Carrie Prejean, of course! She's a staunch republican, is very religious, opposes gay marriage, is an excellent martyr, and is gorgeous.

(kidding, I'm kidding)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Do you believe she's a good choice for Republican financing to run as the nominee for 2012?

No, I don't. Honestly, I think that there's no chance of a republican unseating Obama in 2012, so it's possible that ending her presidential aspirations as a throwaway off-cycle candidate is actually going to be the best outcome for the GOP.

I'd certainly rather see her losing in 2012 than losing in 2016, when the Republicans are likely to regain the white house, assuming they don't run a total loser.

I think that McCain probably thought that the best place for her in 2012 was sitting around as vice president, not interfering with party politics until after he had safely retired in 2016. Obviously that was a pretty big gamble (given that the election was statistically almost a certain democratic win), but John McCain is nothing if not a confident risk taker.

It's a bit premature to cast around for the new face of the Republican party. No one who's politically saavy is likely to want to step out right now, when they'll get steamrollered by the Obama juggernaut. Better to wait until the 2014 midterm elections, and then the 2016 presidential election, and let Palin be the one who takes the steamrollering.

On the other hand, I could be mis-estimating Obama's staying power, a la Bush in 1991, and Palin might be the Republican version of Clinton, but I really don't think so at this point. The most likely things to sap the Obama popularity (deficit spending on a morass of a war) aren't things that point to Palin as the solution.

If the war in Afghanistan drags on until after the next Presidential election (and I think it will), there's a real chance for a pro-peace Republican candidate to emerge and gather national popularity, and a pro-peace Republican is almost certainly going to come from the libertarian wing of the party.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>To be fair, the other options weren't great either.

True. I think Jindal would have resulted in less of a bump initially (less sexy) but a better performance in the long term (less scary.)

Which is an excellent reason, from a strategic standpoint, not to pick him. Let Palin get steamrollered by Obama, and keep Jindal in reserve as a potential for 2016. An ethnic minority with immigrant roots pushes the party in a much healthier direction, long term. There are several other below-the-radar Republicans with similar backgrounds, and I expect that one (or more) of them will be the rejuvenator that the GOP is searching for.

Anh Cao for president in 2016? I think the GOP could do a lot worse.

For those not familiar with him, that last bit is obviously rhetorical. Cao, as a Vietnamese immigrant, is not eligible for the presidency.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Remster 30]

On the plus side, she's ready for a race!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_runner_s_world_6

Remster

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe she's a good choice for Republican financing to run as the nominee for 2012?

No, I don't. Honestly, I think that there's no chance of a republican unseating Obama in 2012, so it's possible that ending her presidential aspirations as a throwaway off-cycle candidate is actually going to be the best outcome for the GOP.

It's quite premature to call 2012 a lock. This isn't 1996. OTOH, Bob Dole was a much better candidate than Palin ever will be. Ultimately, it comes down to what the Democrats do with 60 members in the Senate, and if the economy is on an upward trajectory by late 2011. In 1984, the economy was hardly better than when Reagan took over, but it was trending in the upward direction. When you look at what the winner got this year, it's a challenge for anyone to get reelected, and it's been made rather clear that Obama is as inexperienced as thought.

Palin was a gamble for McCain. He was probably screwed no matter what - running on the Bush platform was a mistake, though even if he hadn't, he'd still be blamed for it. But there were other women that could have brought him the female and cute angle, and not driven away moderates who saw her as unqualified. The evangelicals were voting for the McCain ticket regardless, so you didn't need to please them.

[grimmie 186]

The truth of this past election was..
The GOP could have dug up Ronny Reagan and he would have lost to Obama.
The people were just exhausted after 8 long years of George W. and Dick.

And Palin is just an election away from going back to the double wide.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The evangelicals were voting for the McCain ticket regardless, so you didn't need to please them.

That wasn't the issue. He knew that those who showed up at the polls would vote for him. What he wanted (and wasn't getting) was organizations and volunteers to help with the campaign.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...it comes down to what the Democrats do with 60 members in the Senate

Absolutely. While I'm a little scared about what comes down the pipe in the next several years, in the longer term, having a supermajority (and controlling both houses of Congress and the white house) is going to be a huge liability, simply because you can't please all the people all the time, and it's going to be tough to make excuses when you have total control.

Well, aside from the fact that I bet we're still hearing how everything is Bush's fault for at least 3 more years.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,089]

>I bet we're still hearing how everything is Bush's fault for at least
>3 more years.

Nonsense! Everything that goes wrong in the country is Clinton's fault. Haven't you been paying attention? That will remain true until enough time elapses that everything can be blamed on Obama, although some people here seem to be jumping the gun on that. A few are blaming things on Obama _and_ Clinton, which I must say is an impressive show of flexibility.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>I bet we're still hearing how everything is Bush's fault for at least 3 more years.

Nonsense! Everything that goes wrong in the country is Clinton's fault. Haven't you been paying attention?.

Sorry. I was just listening to the President.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A few are blaming things on Obama _and_ Clinton, which I must say is an impressive show of flexibility.

The hat trick would include Carter. Maybe something about Central America, involving the Canal?

[billvon 3,089]

>The hat trick would include Carter. Maybe something about Central
>America, involving the Canal?

One trifecta, coming up! From the conservative blog Al Fin:

=================
22 September 2008

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton Share Blame for Subprime Mortgage Recession, Government Overshoot

The current Wall Street quakes have their origins in the Jimmy Carter administration of the late 1970s, and the "affirmative action" banking laws Carter instigated. Bill Clinton only made things worse by adding more muscle to affirmative action banking enforcement.
==================

The perfect blamestorm, if you will.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Whoever first suggested her as the VP nominee really needed to be taken out to the woodshed.

I'm not a part of her wing of the party, but picking her as the VP nominee was actually a pretty sound choice, tactically.

1) She was a woman. We all know that we'd like to deny that matters, but the fact is that it does matter.

2) She's young and attractive. When you're running an old curmudgeon like John McCain against a young hottie like Barack Obama, you damn sure want some hottie power of your own up on the stage.

3) She's a darling of the evangelical christian right. McCain had zero traction in that camp, and he knew that their activists were critical to the Bush victories. She was his way of getting them to work for him.

Note that I'm not saying I'm a fan of hers, or that I agree with her on much (I do on some things, but not most things). But I think that her selection was a very good tactical choice for the McCain campaign, given their situation.

Pretty much the only negative that comes of that is after the election, when she's been elevated to national spotlight status, and the rest of the GOP has to deal with it. That's a problem, sure, but not the top thing on your mind when you're trying to win the Presidential election.

I think you nailed it almost completely. Gov. Palin was the energizing factor for the republicans during the election. However, she was not, and may not be still, the right person for the office. Your last point is where I disagree though. The party didn't have to "contend" with her, she had to contend with the party who started a cannibalistic butchering of her on all fronts.

The feeding frenzy on her, and her family is disgraceful, and in the face of that, she has maintained quite the impressive composure.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!