I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin. Having said that, I think it will be immensely unfair of the McCain Campaign and the GOP if they scapegoat her. After all, they plucked her out of Alaska as a relative novice, subjected her to brutal mocking by SNL and other media ('subjected her to' may be too affirmative; more like exposed her to it...knowing how brutal politics can be), and now seem to be suggesting that they will scapegoat her. If they do this, it will reinforce my impression that the modern Republican Party being a party of the past and about hatred and blame, rather than the future and improving things and looking for common sense solutions. They need to cut out the criticism of Palin on the right now after using her for their intended purposes.
Republican party is built to win elections. Now while they did not win this time, everything they do will be subjugated to the goal of winning. Palin in 2012 is a pipe dream.
Dude chill, I was not attacking your post. I was just merely pointing out that Palin 2012 is something in the air and is a pipe dream.
The Republicans cannot win with a Moderate candidate Loss McCain 2008 Dole 1996 Bush 1992 Wins Bush 2004 Bush 2000 Bush 1988 Reagon 1984 reagon 1980 they need to stay to the right.
Sarah Palin was by no means innocent here. Don't you think when agreeing to be republican VP nominee she calculated the possibility of McCain getting elected and dying in office? Palin got some national exposure, when before nobody knew anything about her.
I know. Mecor - I agree. The GOP is doomed if it doesn't adapt to a rapidly changing American demographic makeup. The Democrats, for all the talk of 'the most liberal member of the senate' by the GOP spin machine, have learned to talk the talk - let's see if Obama can walk the walk. Like I said, Obama's Harvard Law Review experience can not be underemphasized (IMO). Talk to modern Republican elites; even neocons, who were there then. They have all said Obama, after being elected President of 'The Review,' immediately named conservative editors to the board.
Sarah Palin was pounded unmercifully by the liberal media, and by guys like you who called her a "cunt" or worse. So now that you propose to "defend" her is more than a little ironic. Meanwhile, I find it equally ironic that the experience you cite for Obama is his tenure at the Harvard Law Review. LOL. That may well be his only executive experience. OldTrader
No one should be under any illusions as to why McCain lost. It had zero to do with Sarah Palin. A large part of the blame of course has to go to Bush, a man who no doubt meant well but made terrible decisions. McCain gets the rest of the blame. He ran a very uneven campaign. He failed to duplicate the winning strategy of 2000 and 2004 of establishing a negative persona of the democrat candidate. That task should have been very easy, but McCain didn't address it until very late in the campaign at a time whne he was clearly desperate and the public had been brainwashed into believing that Obama was just an idealistic reformer. The McCain/Bush team wrapped things up by fomenting an apparently phony financial crisis that lead to partial nationalization of the financial sector. So much for conservative principles. McCain tried a grandstand play, then meekly did Wall Street's bidding. If he had stood tall and opposed the bailout, he would be planning his transition and the republicans might have at least held their own in the congressional races.