Posted on 07/03/2009 6:40:30 PM PDT by taildragger
Like many here, I am a political prognosticator. I followed Sarah Palin here for almost 2 years and told friends last May if McCain only chance is to pick Palin. So what does Sarah Palin's latest move mean?
Such action would do nothing but give Obama a 2nd term. The word that comes to mind is “LOGIC”. Sheeze
>>> unfortunately, as I posted the day after the election, there has only been one person who lost in the election for Vice President only to be elected President in the last century, that was FDR. <<<<
That’s interesting.
And unconvincing, even to this Palin sceptic.
Sounds like the kind of factoid a Beltway talking head would be touting.
Without Palin, McCain would have made Goldwater look like a BIG winner. McCain and the Republicans saved themselves from the biggest defeat in modern times by putting Palin on the ticket.
That's why WE don't use the term. Only Democrats use the term.
I see it and one common thread, they are SICK of the GOP.
“Secret project, I have not heard anything about this, when did he talk about this project, and maybe Sarah is involved in this project”
Give her a talk radio show to get her message out and watch the left libs head’s explode! Wouldn’t that be great. In fact give her a FOX TV show as well.
“’I love to see her join the Libertarian party’”
That is unlikely considering.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Wrong. When Idiot McCain halted campaigning, running back to Washington to support the bailout bill, the campaign nosedived. Had he gone back to put a halt to that travesty instead of supporting it, he just may have won. Sarah Palin did give him a huge boost but McCain squandered it.
We also use First Past The Post voting. That is, the guy with the most votes wins.
Both factors create a situation where parties can exist at only two nodes. Currently that tends to be a Republican, or a Democrat node.
There aren't even variations at the state level.
A new party must be successful the first time out. The way you do that is the way the Republicans did it when they took over from the Whigs. Basically a bunch of Whig politicians became Republicans. What we need is for a bunch of Republican politicians to become whatever we want to call the new party.
There must be enough "conversions" or "rebrandings" to leae the residual Republican rump party unable to run candidates!
Right.
And FDR did not run against the President he had lost to just 4 years earlier.
FDR’s election was no rematch. Just as Nixon’s second run wasn’t a rematch either. Both Nixon and FDR waited at least 8 years and for a totally different ticket to run against.
But Dewey, Stevenson, and Mondale all ran in rematches of one form or another, and all lost. And by bigger margins the second time around.
Running one of your losing candidates against the ticket they already lost to 4 years ago amounts to political surrender for a party.
I see 84 maybe 87 people on this thread. There are millions who have no clue this site exists. Why not get out and talk to the people at the meetings and on the streets? Make the calls, contact the people, work the voting registration drives, and then get back in touch with all of us who know a third party will fail.
But Palin didn’t bring in more votes than 0bama.
So OK, McCain is a bigger loser than Palin.
But she’s still a loser.
And she would be a loser once again if she ran against 0bama again.
What part of “10 million votes less than 0bama” do you not understand?
So what if it would have been 12 million votes less without her?
It’s still 10 MILLION VOTES SHORT.
-10,000,000 isn’t enough to win by even Al Gore’s math.
The failure of the GOP to nominate conservatives ultimately lies with lazy and uninformed Republican primary voters.
Obama obtained 69,456,897 votes. McCain received 59,934,814 votes. That’s roughly a 10 million vote difference. Still, McCain would have won with only 4,761,043
more votes (out of the same total number of votes).
I doubt she will do much more than write, blog, & give non-confrontational interviews.
Perhaps in time, when the kids are grown, & she is wiser, with thicker skin, she will reemerge into politics. If so, this resignation will come back to haunt her.
Now, can we get a new conservative leader - one who eats leftists for breakfast & licks his fingers in delight? The time for politeness & one-sided fair play is over. Mommy has gone home in disgust!
I like Palin, & I agree with most of her politics, but she is just TOO NICE!
go away....just go away....
She will never join libertarians...they are isolationists and she is strong on national defense ...has a son in Iraq...
No kidding
Third parties are ALWAYS a mistake
4,761,043 votes, not 10 million. Remember, every additional vote for McCain is one less vote for Obama.
Something she said in the speech lead me to believe the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.