Skip to main content

Good news everyone!

According to Rasmussen, Republicans list their preferences for 2012 as follows:

  1. Sarah Palin
  1. Mike Huckabee
  1. Mitt Romney

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.
Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.

On top of that, Rasmussen finds that sixty-nine percent (69%)....let me say that again (like Biden)...

sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency.

Remember:

An Election Day survey found that 81% of Democrats and, more importantly, 57% of unaffiliated voters had an unfavorable view of her.

Things are looking great for the Democratic Party.

But how do we take advantage of this? Do we do nothing and let them crash and burn?  Do we pretend to be afraid of a Palin/Huckabee candidacy?

Do we just ignore them at our peril?

ALSO: http://www.palinaspresident.us/is now reality-based.

Originally posted to Cardinal Tiger on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:13 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  If I had to bet (7+ / 0-)

      I'd have to say it'll be Bobby Jindal.

      So now that we've won, when does the apocalypse begin?

      by Hannibal on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even with that excorcism thing? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Philpm, lazybum, page394

        I think some people might find that....off putting.

        "We're half awake in a fake empire."

        by Alec82 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:35:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I used to think so too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alec82

          But I'm not so sure it'll be enough keep him off a ticket.

          •  The fact that he has a litany of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            carolkay, Alec82

            truly crazed positions, no ethnic political support to tap into, (since East Indians are a negligible part of the population, unlike Jews, Latinos, African-Americans, or Asians on the west coast), subscribes to a Counter-Reformation brand of Catholicism that would get him in a lot of trouble outside of Louisiana's backwoods parishes (which have a high number of people of French-Catholic descent) and has no experience in adversarial Republican politics (Jindal has been coddled since he was hired by former Republican governor Mike Foster, the state GOP cleared obstacles for him, provided him with lavish financial assistance and has generally promoted him in the same fashion J.C. Watts was promoted, he's never faced an internecine Republican primary fight) and when other fundies start attacking his religion, it'll have traction. Plus he comes off as token. The only reason anyone speaks about Bobby Jindal is because he's a brown Republican, he's been governor less than a year, and his record as a House member was in Scott Garrett/Mike Pence territory, 97%. The corporate money would never back this guy because he'd suffer annihilation that would make Goldwater look competitive.

          •  Were there any witchdoctors involved? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            spyguy999, Alec82

            Then I believe it's OK.

            Skip the Drama, Vote Obama

            by reef the dog on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:55:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Nah. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Philpm, lazybum

        The "Base" will hate him for all the reasons they hated Barack and he's way harder to defend against the smears  connected to ethnicity and religion (he converted in his late teens).

        I'm pretty sure the Independents they'd need would find him as repellent as Palin for all the same reasons.

        They're going to let him deal with Louisiana to play roulette with the levies with Nagin, maybe putting him get into the Senate down the road to replace some of their old blood.

        Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

        by evilene689 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:55:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sarah Palin will try for the nom in 2012 unless (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        carolkay

        she's defeated for reelection as governor in 2010. Taking her down then should be a high priority for us.

        This blows me away that this country is this stupid to put this evil man [Obama] into office. -- From a post at RaptureReady.com

        by Kimball Cross on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:25:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But if she tries in 2012, I don't think she'll (0+ / 0-)

          get it. The others mentioned here have a much better chance.

          This blows me away that this country is this stupid to put this evil man [Obama] into office. -- From a post at RaptureReady.com

          by Kimball Cross on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:26:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Or Huckabee/Jindal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Philpm

      after the Religious Right wins the war civil over who runs the Republican Party.

      "We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales." - Barack Obama

      by Lefty Coaster on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:03:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is a very..very long time till 2012. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yosef 52
    •  I hate to repeat myself, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimball Cross

      but I really am beginning to believe in a personal type God who gets involved in human affairs.  And he's going to help us again by sending the Republicans to fawn over the Palinator.  Won't that be fun?  She'll be even crazier in 4 years, and she'll have those scary, Michele Bachmann botox eyes too also.  Thanks God.

  •  God CAN'T be this kind... (10+ / 0-)

    Then again, we've had the seven (eight?) lean years...time for seven years of plenty?

    (Biblical reference in honor of HuckaPalin.)

    "Jiminy God!" --Larry Craig, on the shocking notion that anyone might think he was gay

    by rlamoureux on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM PST

  •  Do they really think (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julie Gulden, Philpm, page394

    they'll win states like Ohio and Colorado with that ticket?

    -5.50, -5.90, History has a way of repeating itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA

    by cmangin on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:18:59 PM PST

    •  I strongly suspect that the "wall street repubs" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Philpm

      were not asked their opinion!  

      Moderation in all things-NOT

      by Julie Gulden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:23:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not with Palin on their ticket (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lazybum

      but depending on how economic fortunes go in the next four years, and whether the Dems continue their course toward becoming Wall Street's second party, Huckabee could be a big problem for the Dems.  No major political figure since William Jennings Bryan has so ably combined the two wings of American populism, economicaly left and culturally conservative, as well as Huckleberry does.  If things keep going into the crapper, and the Dems, goaded on by the Summers, Rubins and Emmanuels, empty the taxpayer pocket in more bailouts of corporate giants, watch out.

      Huckabee/Jindal could be quite a serious challenge.

      Democracy is not just about Election Day. The day after Election Day, you have to demand that the next President stand up for you, not Exxon Mobil ~B. Sanders

      by ActivistGuy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:23:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They wouldn't win Georgia with that ticket (0+ / 0-)

      whoever runs in 2012 will be a sacrificial lamb. They will be destroyed, whether it's Romney, or Huckabee (who actually has some economic positions that could resonate outside the GOP, but has no constituency inside the GOP.) It won't be Palin, whoever it is.

  •  I don't see Huckabee going for that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm

    I do hear that Bob Novak(I thought he retired?) is pimping Newt Gingrinch.

    That party just doesn't get it.

    Newt, Mittens, Huck, Sarah, Bobby J, Pawlenty?

    They are not going to save the Republican Party.  The Republican party is, IMO, facing something they are not entirely in control of and a generation of leadership brought up, politically speaking, a generation ago, is simply too far out of touch with current political realities(I'd exclude Pawlent/Jindal but they've been nurtured during the reign of W) to lead the party to fertile political ground.

    They're in the Wilderness and they do not have anyone who can lead them out, because ALL OF THEM subscribe to a discredited ideology.

    If the demographics of the country are shifting as they appear to be, moderation is the only future for the Republican Party.  And they must abandon Reaganomics(at least for now); it's been repudiated.

    •  They're a regional party. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jaywillie, GrouchoKossak, abrauer

      and the Red South is shrinking.

      "The end of all education should surely be service to others." -César Chávez

      by Cardinal Tiger on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't ironice... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Philpm, lazybum, GrouchoKossak

        and also supremely perfect that the Southern Strategy has come back to bite them in the ass?

        They appealed to conservative Southern white men for SO long that they've lost the Northeast(which used to be a Republican stronghold for the 1st half of the 20th century), the Midwest and swaths of the Mountain West.

        As George Carlin would say, "They're shit out of luck and jolly-well fucked."

        •  Historical analysis of the parties is useless (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lazybum

          before 1968. That was a seismic shift in the ideologies and strategies of the two parties. Looking at the ideology pre-1968 or election results pre-1972 is a mistake.

          •  I wasn't really analyzing the GOP's (0+ / 0-)

            displacement from the Northeast as I was simply noting how their regional base of power has shifted, from once being a more liberal Northeastern money party to becoming Southern-base party of Gods, Guns & Gays.

            However, I would strongly disagree with the notion that historical analysis of the partie's is useless.  I would say that historical analysis of the parties pre-1920 is slightly more difficult since the characteristics we've come to identify the two major parties with since the latter half of the 20th century were not at all defined.

            I'm not actually seeing what you are referring to in my original comment, to be honest.

            My essential point was that the Southern Strategy, wherein Republicans manipulated a racist appeal to displace the Democratic party from their electoral roots in the South(largely maintained because of the economic appeal) has led to Republicans growing seriously out of touch with other regions of the country.

            I don't think it's a mistake to note that the Republican party was once a Northeastern party, which post-Lincoln consistently favored Big Monied interests, and continues to do so today.

            What the party has lost is any sense of social liberalism, which was reflected in its Northeaster roots, as the Northern states have always been, on average, far more liberal than the Southern states.

            In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that failure to compare and analyze the two parties, particularly between 1860 - 1968, would result in a complete misunderstanding or, perhaps more accurately, not as deep an appreciation as to how the two parties arrived at the "seismic shifts," as you call them, of 1968.  I just don't see how you can talk about 1968 or the Rise of Reagan or modern conservatism without at least having some understanding of the previous 30-40 years of politics.

            Of course, if one mistakenly applies the ideology of Republicans 1992 to Republicans 1920, yes, that's just ridiculous.

            But if we're to understand WHY Republicans shifted to the Southern Strategy in the 60's, you have to take into account the politics of the years before 1968.  If you want to understand Reagan and Goldwater modern conservatism, you have to understand FDR and the New Deal.  If you want to understand FDR and the New Deal, you have to understand Hoover, Coolidge, Harding.

            It's not useless or a mistake to compare the origins of the Republican Party as a largely pro-abolition party, a social reform party, with its transformation into a Southern Party of intolerance.

            You're really dismissing comparative politics in one broad swath - that's the mistake.

            •  I'm not dismissing comparative politics, sorry (0+ / 0-)

              It's more the ideological comparison and the comparison of the "base". It makes no sense to go "the Republicans lost the Northeast" when there was literally a flipping of which parties had support in which states.

              •  But I make neither of those comparisons (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Neon Vincent

                I simply made a statement that at one time the Republican party held the Northeast.  I never said Republicans "lost" the northeast - it's more accurate that they abandoned it.

                But I don't think there's any doubt that part of the reason the GOP weakened in the northeast is because they adopted a far more conservative ideology after the 1940's.  The GOP deciding to pursue the Southern Strategy, the exodus of conservative Democrats to the Republican Party in the 60's, 70's, 80's...all of these things are not unrelated.

                If I left you with the impression that I was somehow comparing the old Northeast Republican party with the current Republican Party and both having similar ideologies, that was not my intention(nor do I really see where I do that).

                But if you want to understand the Republican Party in the 20th century and how it got to the point it's at now, then you do have to look back at why Republicans lost the Northeast, because it is directly related to why they became a Southern Party today.

                The flipping of support, as you put it, didn't happen by itself.  It was largely because Republicans abandoned their more liberal traditions, which they held as a Northeastern party, in pursuit of displacing Democrats from the South by appealing to more conservative positions(chiefly race).  

                And I don't think there's any question that Republicans, because they have pursued Southern white males for the last 40-50 years, has cost them dearly in the Northeast, making it even harder for them to appeal to voters here.

                Originally, I only mentioned that Republicans had been much stronger in the Northeast to show the contrast with today, when they have no Republican congresspersons from New England and a single Senator(Collins).

  •  So begins the Theocrat, Corporatist split (14+ / 0-)

    The corporatist/fascist wing of the party never enacted the theocratic agenda - and they (the theocrats) are fed up.

    They think they are ready to take over.  The fascists consider them convenient loons and have their own agenda.

    I intend to do all I can to encourage the split.

    Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    by UneasyOne on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:22:06 PM PST

  •  Ugh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, Philpm, GrouchoKossak

    It's four years away. Four years ago, nearly everybody thought Hillary Clinton was going to be our nominee, which goes to show the value of people trying to prognosticate this far out. A lot can, and will, happen before 2012 comes along.

    So now that we've won, when does the apocalypse begin?

    by Hannibal on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:22:11 PM PST

  •  They are sure to carry the Bible Belt States... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, Philpm, Losty

    But those are the only states they would carry.

    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, US AG

    by Mr SeeMore on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:24:10 PM PST

    •  Without serious adjustments... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yosef 52, Philpm, Mr SeeMore

      that might be about all Republicans get for a few more cycles.

      That's really where their party is right now - older, mostly white Southern religious conservatives.

      Unless they broaden their appeal - and returning to a full-throated call for unyielding conservatism is not the answer - the Republican Party is fucked.

  •  If they seriously want to take the party in that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm

    direction, they will never win anything. Talk about a Jesus overload.

    If they seriously want to reform their party, they need to divorce themselves from the racist jesus-loving hillbillies (who will vote for them anyway) and focus on the fiscal conservative side of things.

    But hey, go ahead. They can screw themselves over if they want. Say goodbye to every independent and swing voter ever.

  •  What about Thune? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Cat Nerd, Philpm

    He seems like a mean, theocratic, jingoistic pretty-boy jerk.

    He's perfect for the Republican party.

    Right now, Thune's my dark horse.

    I don't see the Republican going for the current crop of clowns they're stuck with - it's gonna be someone not on the radar right now.

  •  I disdain all Republicans, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm, I said GOOD DAY sir

    but I must say, although they are on the wrong side of every issue, Pawlenty and Jindal are at least intelligent. Jindal is a Rhodes scholar, an honor impossible to achieve without an outstanding intellect, and Pawlenty is an articulate and persuasive orator, who has a good grasp of economics and public policy. Obviously they're ideology is atrocious, but I must say I hope the Republicans make a hard turn to the left, and spurn these guys for an empty vessel like Palin.

    “We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different.” - Kurt Vonnegut

    by livingproof on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:25:44 PM PST

  •  All this means (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm

    is that Palin has zero chance of being the nominee.  When's the last time that the frontrunner 4 years out actually gained the nomination?

  •  whoever they runin 2012 cant be a rising star (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm, GrouchoKossak

    because they wont beat Obama in2012..The muslim terrorist meme will be dead and he will have surely passed some of his agenda...thye wont want to waste a star on a race against Obama

    look for someone stellar (gasp - if they can find one) to run in 2016

  •  Palin could win if this were 1992; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm

    fortunately for America it's not 1992 and the politics of fear and division is weakened. Romney is the 'natural' Republican contender at the moment, but things could change a whole lot in the next year or two. Huckabee has a certain charm, but underneath that friendly surface is a mean S.O.B., and that would be eventually revealed in a long campaign. I don't see any potential winners in the Republican stable so far.

    •  Palin in 1992 (0+ / 0-)

      Palin NEVER had to face OTHER republicans on a national stage for debates.
      I personally can not wait to see if see runs in 2012, the other republicans running and facing her in debates are going to eat her lunch.

      EVERY Republican that runs in 2012 is going to blast her ENDLESSLY for the gaffs she made during the campaign. Can you just imagine the television ads the republicans running for the president are going to run against her?

      Palin's head will be spinning like linda blair's in the exorcist as she mutters "where has all the love gone"

  •  yum (0+ / 0-)

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM PST

  •  I'm glad there is finally polling info that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Philpm, ggwoman55

    matches up to what I've been seeing.  I remember the crows from that newsweek poll saying that Palin wasn't as popular as Romney or Huckabee and as an evangelical who was in NC not too long ago, I can tell you that poll was complete bullshit.  This Rasmussen poll is what I'm seeing.  The GOP base LOVES, yes LOVES Palin far more than Huckabee or Romney or Jindal or anybody else.  Huckabee had them for a while in the primary this year basically by default.  But Palin is who they really want going forward.  Huckabee is seen as too soft and too willing to bend over to make himself seem nice to the 'librul media'.

    Let's hope the Palin supporters win out in their war against the Romneys and the Jindals of their party.  We can be assured of another huge Obama victory in 2012.

    I like Michelle more than Barack.

    by duha on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:46:26 PM PST

  •  Palin will try to re-package herself (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, Philpm, ggwoman55

    as a more erudite and better informed fundamentalist whack-job in 2012.

    The only part of the old GOP coalition she'll really keep is the one made up of fundamentalists, end-timers, racists, and rednecks. The stupic wing of the party. The republicans with a brain, many of whom bailed on McPalin this time, won't be fooled by her makeover, especially given what she's up against, but they might end up with her jammed down their throats yet again.

    But by then, barring any nasty surprises, we should be pulling out of the recession, and will already have pulled out of Iraq. Many if not most moderate republicans will have become Obama Republicans, and independents won't be going anywhere. The Obama re-election campaign will bring even more Democrats and young people on board.

    If the Republican party runs Sarah Palin in 2012, they'll be crushed as badly as Mondale was.

    It's going to take them 8 years at least, and probably closer to twice that, to build a party with a cohesive enough identity and message to make them nationally competitive. I can't even begin to imagine what that'll be, given the failure of their governing philosophy and the electoral box they've painted themselves into.

    "It has been suggested in some quarters that this is not enough..." -- J. Strummer

    by BobzCat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:50:15 PM PST

  •  Did Allen Keyes make the list? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, spyguy999
  •  How about Mittens/Pawlenty on the Repub ticket (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, Philpm

    and Palin/Huckabee as a third party ticket, say, the American Christian Party.

    Works for me!

  •  why not mccain? he's a maverick! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GrouchoKossak, xeromachine

    The determination of our President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success. is made evident by the puny opposition arrayed against him.

    by Tom J on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:54:13 PM PST

  •  I wonder if this Rasmussen report (0+ / 0-)

    is the reason the campaign has turned on Palin so hard.

    Maybe they know they can't win next time with a fundie on the ticket, since it failed so badly this time. Are they damaging her for 2012?

    The base is just too small, and getting smaller.The demographics will only keep getting worse for them as the old Southerners die off.

  •  Forget Palin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, Philpm, GrouchoKossak

    Very few failed VP nominees go on to be on the top of the ticket at a later date.  I can recall only two ... FDR (failed VP nom, 1920, succcessful Pres. nom 1932) and Bob Dole (failed VP nom, 1976, failed Pres. nom, 1996).  In fact, Joseph P. Kennedy was relieved when JFK lost a floor fight to Estes Kefauver at the 1956 Dem convention to be the VP Nom.  He knew Stevenson was going to be crushed and didn't want Jack to be on a failed ticket.

    The media which pushes the "Palin in '12" stories consists of lazy reporters who believe the public is stupid.

  •  If all goes well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, Philpm

    in four years, Palin will be cleaning up a spill on aisle seven..

  •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not ready for the Repubs to try to bring on the apocalypse for several millenia yet.

    I wish I'd spent my $3.99 on a dollar bill.

    by Philpm on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:06:40 PM PST

  •  Operation Chaos II - The Kossack edition (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Philpm, GrouchoKossak

    Start a movement now.

    Draft Palin in 2012!

    SarahIsEsther.com

    Todd for First Dude!

    Fund her like Obama.

    Make her nomination inescapable and inevitable.

    Hannity is a hate crime.

    by abrauer on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:07:10 PM PST

  •  Name Recognotion -- Nothing More (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, A Citizen, johnjb

    Remember 2002 and "frontrunnner" Joe Lieberman for the 2004 nomination?

  •  Those are the names they know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skertso

    It's not surprising that they would come up in polls. Palin makes Quayle look like Einstein. Much as it would boost our 2012 chances, Palin won't be the nominee. I suspect we've just scratched the surface of her corruption. I predict that the 2012 GOP nominee will be someone who is not a household name today.

    There's going to be a lot of fighting in the GOP, as they are leaderless for the first time in a very long time. Factions in the religious right will fight each other pretty fiercely. The Wall Street Republicans, who have always been the true base of the Republican Party - the religious right are just their shock troops - will get into the fighting as well. Dubya wasn't kidding when he called the "haves and the have mores" his base.

    It's one of the problems that the GOP has had in controlling the religious right - how to get them to follow while giving them as little in return as possible.

    McCain 08: The Doubletalk Express

    by A Citizen on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:24 PM PST

  •  We support her and then after 2012 (0+ / 0-)

    the meme will be the Palin effect.

    I'm Exxon John and I approve this message---McCain's Scumbags

    by Obamacrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:35:16 PM PST

  •  They won't go away, ever (0+ / 0-)

    The white bigoted fundies have always been here. The only difference is that up until the 1960s or so, it was the Democratic party that they adhered to.  Now it's the Republicans.  

    They won't go away. They will never go away.  It's only a matter of either educating them (good luck), or marginalizing them to such an extent that neither party will touch them.  And that's not going to happen either.  

    In a way, Huckabee with his supposed leftist economic policies and his adherence to Evangelical principles represents the WBFs more than either the modern-day Democrats or Republicans ever did.  If the WBFs had their own party that not only addressed their conservative social ideology but also their fiscal well-being, well now that would be interesting.  I don't think such a party has ever existed in this country, has it?

  •  hahahahahahaha (0+ / 0-)

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Oh, yeah!  Bring it on!

  •  Palin hasn't paid her dues (0+ / 0-)

    She might be popular with the right-wing right now, but the Republican Party is deeply hierarchical and you have to wait your turn before you can run. That's why I'd count out Jindal or Palin in 2012. Now, 2016, that's another story.

  •  By pandering to the theocons (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP leadership has destroyed its own party!  Way to go!  Permanent marginalization!

    "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

    by fishhead on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:15:12 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site