Originally Posted by chelsea24

Oh, and I suppose 'Bedtime for Bonzo' qualified your deity Ronald Reagan to run for Governor of CA! Ga-faw, Ga-faw....

Hmmmmm One has to pay the bills. 3 in the morning ...that's all you got? LOL To reach in your bag of lefty cliches..and come out with 1980's talking points? I really thought you had more on the ball.

The bottom line is that most folk who win elections do so because of their popularity, not their competence. That goes for both major parties. When candidates are unknown at the onset, the odds of winning are very long. That's why winning the first election is so important, because that local "bully pulpit" keeps one in the public eye, and usually that vision is manufactured to insure "popular" is maintained or enhanced." How else would congressfolk stay in office 15-20-30-40 years despite a <15% approval rating?

Fred Grandy probably said it best, that despite his education, lifelong political interests and activities, "If there were no Gopher, there would be no Fred Grandy for Congress." (BTW, Grandy can be heard on WMAL, internet-available, M-F 5-9AM on a morning political talk show originating in DC).

Pres. Obama is probably the best of the latest examples. When compared to the other Democratic hopefuls, his experience (government and private) lagged behind all of the nomination candidates. The same held true against Sen, McCain. In the end, "charm" - the lynchpin of popularity - won out.

So, what works for becoming senior class president in high school still works later in life. The valedictorian's academic standing versus the candidates for class president are rarely even in the same quadrant. That irony continues onward.

Gov. Palin undoubtedly capitalized on her "charm" in past elections in Alaska, and Sen. McCain recognized that he needed "charm help" in 2008. She did make a positive impact on the Republican ticket. So, her going forward now, rather than just retreating to the far frozen north and well out of the public eye, is politically logical. The alternative is to be another Eagleton, Kemp, Bentsen or other VP candidate on the losing side - never to be a factor again.

1) Run for President?
2) Scandal brewing?
3) Heath? Maybe her husband or children?
4) The Left finally wore her down-politics not worth it anymore?
Part of Left's strategy with conservative woman is that they make politics so ugly, so nasty, so personal,and so vicious that conservative women quit.
It wouldn't be so bad if they used their venom on just Sarah, but they have attacked every member of her family. From small babies to husbands...nothing is off limits to the hateful Left.
5) Pregnant again?
6) Running for Senator

Sarah Palin will work to help get Republicans elected in 2010. No RINOS. Look for her to be on the talk shows, both radio and tv. She is a good spokesperson for the Republican Party and though I like Romney, Palin will be able to do more at this time. It could end up Romney-Palin in 2012.

Originally Posted by starflyte1

...It could end up Romney-Palin in 2012.

I sure hope not. If she was his choice for VP, I think it might introduce some serious questions regarding the judgement he would need to serve as POTUS. There has to be a candidate for the "one heartbeat away" job who has demonstrated more competence and has more experience.

And please, let's not start backing up again to discuss opinions on Joe Biden. We're talking about 2012, not 2008.

I don't see where she has done a terrible job as governor. What has she done that is so bad?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I sure hope not. If she was his choice for VP, I think it might introduce some serious questions regarding the judgement he would need to serve as POTUS. There has to be a candidate for the "one heartbeat away" job who has demonstrated more competence and has more experience.

And please, let's not start backing up again to discuss opinions on Joe Biden. We're talking about 2012, not 2008.

Come on...Are you serious??? When you let "community organizers" into the equation...competence and experience?? I feel like I'm living in some weird twilight zone where up is down and down is King.

VP candidates are least threat candidates to the POTUS candidate that can drum up more votes.
Qualifications based on most all predecessors? A pulse!!!!

btk

VK asks:

Will the conservative Christian right wing accept a Mormon as "their" candidate?

The conservative christian right has shown it is willing to accept anyone who will further their own selfish causes and who can win.

Both Ensign and Sanford are members of the infamous "C Street House" also known as "The Family" whose goal is Christian Capitalism at any costs. They are tied in with Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed and James Dobson. They support Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, David Vittner, Tom Davis- and the lists go on. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a matter of moralizing hypocrisy.

You'll never hear condemnation from them of their own kind. They judge only by usefullness to their agenda, not by any actual morality or behavior.

Romney will be a great candidate for them because he can win, and aside from some moral flip-flops that favor conservatives anyway (Gay marriage, choice), he seems to be a man of decent family virtue and values. Quite a change from most recent "values" candidates.

[QUOTE=Keedy;212851]1) Run for President?

Part of Left's strategy with conservative woman is that they make politics so ugly, so nasty, so personal,and so vicious that conservative women quit.

I assume that's the reason why Anne Coulter, Michele Malkin, Phyllis Schlafly, Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger, not to mention our own little Lizzie Bordens- Sandy Mott & Ruthie Kelly- are so "polite" and respectful to their opponents in their writings.

Give me a break! Just who is it that's nasty & vicious?

[quote=ptownrob;214075]

Originally Posted by Keedy

1) Run for President?

Part of Left's strategy with conservative woman is that they make politics so ugly, so nasty, so personal,and so vicious that conservative women quit.

I assume that's the reason why Anne Coulter, Michele Malkin, Phyllis Schlafly, Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger, not to mention our own little Lizzie Bordens- Sandy Mott & Ruthie Kelly- are so "polite" and respectful to their opponents in their writings.

Give me a break! Just who is it that's nasty & vicious?

Please give us examples of the above mentioned women attacking other candidate's children....Sorry..that's the Left's legacy now.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Was just having a conversation with my wife and I said that I just don't get it.

She summed it up in four simple words.

"Darkness hateth the light"

It seems very judgemental of your wife to name-call Sarah Palin "Darkness"- I mean, maybe Satan incarnate, but "darkness?" Really, isn't that a bit extreme? I mean, just becasue sarah lives for six months a year in darkness doesn't mean she hates the light. Maybe she just has S.A.D. :-]

Originally Posted by ptownrob

It seems very judgemental of your wife to name-call Sarah Palin "Darkness"- I mean, maybe Satan incarnate, but "darkness?" Really, isn't that a bit extreme? I mean, just becasue sarah lives for six months a year in darkness doesn't mean she hates the light. Maybe she just has S.A.D. :-]

Satan incarnate??? I live in Massachusetts and I would rather go to Alaska then P-town. : ) Not that there is anything wrong with P-Town. : )