You’re right, I’m not debating her qualifications for running for office, I’m debating her ability to defeat Barack 0bama in a rematch.
You are trying to short circuit that discussion by making it about something else.
My “agenda” is pretty straight forward.
It is to present the historical evidence that a Palin/0bama rematch is political suicide to anyone who might think it is a good idea. If your agenda is to reelect Barack Hussein 0bama, Jr. in 2012, then it is a good strategy to run him against someone he’s already defeated as his opponent. You eliminate most of the unknowns in a situation that has proven to heavily favor your candidate. You can’t get much more of a sure thing than that.
It was rather ignorant of you to make that claim. In fact, every post you continue to make, further solidifies my suspicions. You are nothing more than a moderate Republican/Independent trying to masquerade as a Conservative.
Don't forget, there are many still here who helped establish this forum and have seen a wide variety of impostor and can easily tell the difference.
The best a VP can do is sure up a Candidates base and not hurt them in the General.
You admit that she is basically the only reason most Republicans voted for McCain. And you have yet to provide any statistics that show Palin cost McCain net votes.
So she fulfilled her part of the Bargain as VP. It was John “The Fundamentals are strong” McCain who could not pull his ass over the finish line.
My “agenda” . . . is to present the historical evidence that a Palin/0bama rematch is political suicide to anyone who might think it is a good idea. If your agenda is to reelect Barack Hussein 0bama, Jr. in 2012, then it is a good strategy to run him against someone he’s already defeated as his opponent. You eliminate most of the unknowns in a situation that has proven to heavily favor your candidate. You can’t get much more of a sure thing than that.
Undoubtedly you can cite more than one case of a presidential aspirant getting a party's nomination twice, and losing a rematch against the sitting president. Certainly Adlai Stevenson would be an example. I just don't accept that it would be a "rematch" for Sarah Palin to run for president for the first time.The difference between president and vice president is pretty much the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug." That's why, although the VP nominee is always selected to "bring something to the ticket" electorally, you can't name any VP nominee who made the difference in a presidential campaign. If McCain had won, he wouldn't have said, "I owe it all to Sarah Palin" - even tho in his case it would actually have been true.
I will agree that I am not optimistic about '12 unless the Republican VP nominee is a pit dog who is able, and cleared by his presidential running mate, to go after Obama hammer and tongs. Which certainly does not describe how John McCain used his VP nominee. I consider it possible that the best VP nominee to run with Sarah Palin - or whoever - might be an unknown black conservative who could throw back charges of racism and be an effective advocate for actual colorblindness in politics.
You keep insisting that a 2012 run by Sarah Palin would be a "rematch" between her and Obama. This ignores the fact that she was the VP candidate in the 2008 race - NOT the Presidential candidate.
You start your argument from a false premise, so everything that follows doesn't hold water.
What's true is this: Sarah Palin ignites, excites, and inspires the right conservative base like no one in a generation. That cannot be denied, or eliminated from any intelligent analysis of the next presidential election, or of her potential to win the White House in that run.
You're trying to swim straight up Niagara Falls, and getting nowhere.