A few serious questions for the GOP

Please, can we leave the political bickering out of this...if possible
(thats aimed at both sides)

Republicans - i am curious if you could offer your opinion on the following questions that have been running around in my mind:


1.) Who would be a likely running mate for Sarah Palin if she ran in 2012?
2.) If Palin ran in 2012, what do you believe her answer for resigning as Governor would be? In other words, how could she possibly spin this move to make it look like a positive?

3.) Why won't the GOP nominate and support a sure fired winner like Ron Paul?

reply to post by Snarf

---

I'm not a Repub, but Ron Paul a sure fire winner?
Paul would be decimated in a national election. He's popular on the internet,
but would lose amazingly as a candidate. Not really trying to debate Ron Paul (and derail your thread ), just throwing in my 2 cents.

Okay I frequently vote Republican but don't classify myself as a Republican. Does that invalidate me?


1.) Who would be a likely running mate for Sarah Palin if she ran in 2012? For what? President? I see that as unlikely. If she somehow did and somehow got close to winning the nomination, her choice for VP would be whoever would get her the most votes in a highly contested region. It's way too early to tell who that might be. The Electoral map will change by then, based upon the results of the 2010 census. If I speculate wildly, I'll go ape and say someone with a pedigree, experience, and in a highly contested state with a big number of Electoral votes - Jeb Bush. I don't think that's any more goofy than considering Palin a viable choice at the top of a ticket.

2.) If Palin ran in 2012, what do you believe her answer for resigning as Governor would be? In other words, how could she possibly spin this move to make it look like a positive? I think she could say almost anything. People who love her will buy it, and those who think she's an idiot won't, no matter how good or bad the answer is.

3.) Why won't the GOP nominate and support a sure fired winner like Ron Paul? He's uncontrollable. McCain campaigned as a maverick, but Paul really is. he has absolutely no prayer of getting close to the nomination for the GOP. Look how he got frozen out in the debates last year. He was the proverbial potted plant. Not to mention, he'll be about 147 years old in the next election cycle. He may be involved, and I hope he is because he has a message that needs to be heard, but he won't play ball with the people who actually pull the strings, so no. No Paul at the top of the GOP ticket, ever.

reply to post by MrDesolate

---

That made me chuckle. It still pains me to think that Ron Paul may never get the nomination. I think he'd do great (and have thought so for as long as i've been interested in politics)

But im kind of disappointed...i've been reading lots of hype here lately from palin supporters about how Palin will be ready in 2012 for POTUS. I was really hoping to hear from some of them

Not that i don't value your input, you made some really interesting statements.

Well...I'm not a Republican, I'm more of a right-leaning non-partisan cynic at this point. Disclaimer in place, I'll give those a shot.

1) It's far, far, far too early to pick V.P. candidates for either party in the 2012 elections. President Obama will probably stick with Mr. Biden, just because splitting a ticket looks bad. Everyone else will pick a V.P. who pulls in the most votes to the ticket by filling in a demographic, geographic, or ideological 'gap' in the primary candidate's appeal.

2) How to make the Palin resignation into a positive? The best 'spin' I can think of for it would be to go the 'family values' route, and try to sell her resignation as a difficult choice between doing her political duty to the people of Alaska and trying to hold her family together in the face of a media-driven crusade to destroy her life, with family being the eventual winner. Whether the story is true or not, if she told it with enough skill and passion, it would let her paint her resignation as an epic personal struggle (always a good thing for a political candidate) between duty and family (which could sell well to the Family Values crowd) against a recognized evil (face it, folks, the Main Stream Media makes a wonderful bad guy...look how we on ATS view the MSM). I"m not saying this would work, mind you, it's just the best spin I can come up with on short notice.

3) Ron Paul isn't a 'sure fired winner'. He's got a lot of internet following, and he had a very active bunch of sign-hangers. Unfortunately for him, the very internet savvy of some of his followers cost him. Several internet polls where his name was featured got hit by 'robo-voters' that skewed results (unless you're willing to believe that several hundred Ron Paul supporters all shared a common I.P. address). That was the main reason he started getting dropped from 'net polls. He got dropped from mass media polls for an even simpler reason. Despite his massive popularity among net-dwellers, he was (and is) a virtual unknown to a substantial slice of the American public. Given the bad behavior of some of his 'net nation', his lack of 'brand recognition' among non-internet voters, his reputation as a 'loose cannon', and his age (he's a year older than John McCain, and there were a fair number of folks who were concerned about McCain's ability to serve), he's not a viable candidate.

reply to post by Snarf

---

1) Who knows. Its too far out to guess, mainly because we need to see how the 2010 midterms play out and who, if anyone, steps up to the plate to take a lead role among the Congressional Republicans. That said, I don't even think Sarah Palin will be the 2012 GOP nominee.
2) Most likely, she would point to the personal financial debts incurred defending herself from the manufactured scandal of the week she was facing from the opposition in Alaska and claim that she could no longer effectively govern in that environment and that her family was incurring unsustainable legal expenses. Whether you think that's a valid reason or not is a matter of opinion.
3) Ron Paul? I like his stances, for the most part, but I have two major issues with him as a candidate. One, he's getting too old. I believe he'll be 77 in 2012. Second, I don't know if its a sense that he's just telling people what he thinks they want to hear or if its that I think he's nuts...not because of his stances, but there's just something there I can't put my finger on.

some really good feed back, i especially liked Brother Stormhammer's ideal that she may spin it off as some sort of epic struggle to save her family. I never thought of it that way before!

I hope we're all still alive and kicking to find out (hehe, 2012 joke...get it )

and we'll wait to see it then.

Nice Answers! Gives me something to think about.

There's some good answers on here. I think most people don't expect (and even hope) that she'll run in 2012. I'm a Palin supporter, but I'd much rather she take a sideline until 2016 or later, while she builds the paper experience.

I expect she'd use the same answer she gave for resigning that she gave when she did it, which was the epic number of lawsuits that she had to take care of, which would have turned her into a lame duck if she'd stayed. "I did it all for the people of Alaska!" though like someone else said, it won't matter what the excuse is, it'll be bought or mocked depending on who hears it.

I really dig Ron Paul, and personally I'm totally for the hardcore libertarian re-vamp that would be required to put the country in that state, but I don't think the country as a whole is ready for it, nor will they likely ever be. It's a real shame, because he's got some great ideas, and you can't argue with a constitutionalist mentality when you're dealing with the constitution.
That said, he'll never be picked, and he'll never win on a third-party basis, which is another shame.

One thing I'm still scratching my head over is the people who went from supporting Ron Paul in '08 to Obama. Still haven't figured that one out.

reply to post by Snarf

---

I'm as right as right will get but I'll bite, i do not speak for my party but i will answer for myself.

1. I do not believe Palin will be the front runner but a VP canadate.
2. I have not followed this (election hangover i guess) But i would hope she would go into her future goals and by following them she felt she could no longer give her attention to the state of AK. (BTW i would still disagree with this.)
3. I see no way to make this a positive. One would have to mud sling to make it go away. I was a big Palin supporter for her beliefs and actions up to this point.
4. Not enough support IMHO. Why vote Paul when all it gets you is Obama.

To go back to your first question, I think it will be a Huckabee/Palin Ticket. Conservatives like myself would druel for this, despite #2.

Does that help?

[edit on 4-11-2009 by anotherdad]

reply to post by anotherdad

---

very much so, yes

What im looking for is a real opinionated thread. Why you think the things you do - instead of democrat/republican nonsensical bickering. (which is apparent in 99.999% of threads in these political forums)



So far so good though - lots of really good discussion IMO

reply to post by Snarf

---

why do i think the things i do? That would take me all night to type. When i write a book i'll let you know.

If your ? is why do i not support a 3rd party canidant while simple, to me. It's a throw away vote. Yes it delivers a message but produces no change. I have never likes BHO but a vote for Paul was essentially a vote for BHO.

I like Paul's economic phillosophyies and he ran a good clean campaign. Did it do any good? In my eyes NO!

1) Can't say who Palin's running mate would be...I don't think she's a viable candidate anymore.

2) The libs and the MSM will tar her as a "quitter" - and in some respects they'd be right.

3) I've never seen/heard much of Ron Paul. I've seen a few of his posters in my area (in 2008) but I'm concerned that once again the libs and the MSM will pile on and make him look so "out of the mainstream" that Hillary would beat him.

Almost anyone would be better than the empty suit in the WH now but we'll have to wait and see who rises to the occasion.

Also not a Republican ... but I'll give you my best guess.

Jindal/Palin. For no other reason than that particular combination would be the creepiest/scariest to me. So, naturally, it has a good chance of coming to pass