Well, I'll retract that comparison. But I still strongly dislike her. I just think she's dumb (and possibly very much so) and because of that her running would have the same effect on the fiscal minded, better educated part of the party as running someone who is purely a social conservative. On the other hand I think Huckabee is essentially a big government democrat who just also happens to be a fundamentalist baptist. The big plus is that I think she and Huck will both run for president in 2012 and hopefully split the same part of the base and make room for Romney (who would have been a winning candidate this year and still will in 2012) to get the nomination.

I think her first interviews were crappy, but I don't think she's dumb.

Once Fred dropped out, I voted for Romney in the primary. Maybe a Romney-Palin ticket wouldn't be so bad, assuming that Palin is ever viable again.

I've got no problem with Jindal either, for that matter, but what Jindal would bring in terms of intellect I think Palin surpasses in terms of charisma. But then again, I don't think she's dumb so I don't think she only brings charisma.

ETA: I think you may be kidding yourself that Romney would be a winning candidate this year. I think that Obama would have beaten him. I still hold out some hope that McCain will pull off a miracle, but I don't really think Obama was beatable by anyone with the level of support he had financially and with the press.

My thought is that with Romney's background the economy becomes a winning issue rather than one that drove the campaign into the ground. And Obama can't go on and on about healthcare, because Romney would have the simple response of "As governor I led Massachusetts to become the only state in the nation which guaranteed healthcare to all of its citizens."

Maybe, but I don't know that it would have mattered. As I said, I voted for him in the primary, so I thought he was the best candidate in the race at that point, but Obama. . .

I'm not sure, and again, I'm pretty biased. But, I think that a lot of the attacks leveled at McCain could be answered by Romney. I think Romney's a better debater than McCain, and with the economy in the current position, his background fits. Plus, I think Romney would have surrounded himself with better people (but, again, I'm biased, so take that with a grain of salt).

Even if Obama were still ahead right now, I don't think it would be nearly the runaway that it is. Part of me is glad that Romney didn't end up as the VP candidate, as I'd rather have him in a position of strength for 2012 (as opposed to having the John Edwards "Losing VP Candidate" burden to carry with him).

Also, and again, this may be just me, but someone who is extremely intelligent is also able to explain things in terms that people could understand. A sign of high intelligence, in my mind, is to explain a concept to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to understand the concept. For example, my tax professor is brilliant (near top of his class at Harvard Law, one of the premier state tax experts, etc.); he is able to walk into a room of liberal arts types, and within a couple of hours can have them understand large portions of the tax code.

Yeah, I don't think this run has helped Palin long term really and that's why I find the 2012 talk for her so peculiar. I'd like to see her again, but now that she's debuted nationally, it's going to be hard to pull off. I don't think she could win a presidential nomination outright.

My skepticism about Romney having been a "winning candidate" isn't about my having a problem with Romney or believing that McCain was a better candidate; I just don't think the Obama momentum was really stoppable. My doubt isn't really about lack of merit.

ETA: Maybe my liking Palin is coloring my judgment, but as popular as Obama has been, McCain's closing the gap as much as he has is really less of a failure that it really seems. I know it's a loss and the party obviously needs to regroup, mainly because of how poorly it governed when it had the chance. The Presidential loss is as good a catalyst as any to rediscover core principles, but McCain/Palin isn't in Mondale sized loss territory (or even Dukakis sized loss), I don't think, and yet, the Democratic party survived and gave us eight years of Clinton. Sorry for how rambling this got. My point in this last paragraph is just that while this sucks and I hope the GOP cleans itself up, I don't think the GOP is going the way of the Whigs or anything.

Well I think it will also give us the political benefit of having the country/economy get worse and the Democrats not having anyone to blame it on (what with controlling Congress and the White House). That gives the Republican party - if they can find an identity and decent candidates - a chance to come sweeping in and clean house in the next elections.

In the short term, I think things will get better. A small part of the economic problems could be somewhat self-healing, consumer confidence, some stock buying behavior, etc. I expect the media to start selling those aspects hard as soon as Obama clinches. I expect them to being to minimize the scale of the crisis and to report more positively on small gains.

I also expect to see positive coverage of any Bush policies the Obama intends to carry over, and I think there will be more of them that Obama is presently claiming. For instance, I don't think he will be in any hurry to get out of Iraq if the perception was that things were improving when he won the election. Small changes will be played up, large similarities played down.

So, because most people won't perceive the county as being in crisis or will perceive this as improving because that's the news they will get, it will be harder for Republicans to do what you are suggesting.

And some of that will be great. I'm all about economic recovery. I don't want the country to suffer because it helps the GOP.

To the original question, many of the political shows this weekend addressed the schism in the party as have several articles in the news. I don't think Palin is causing the schism. I think it's being highlighted because of the combined ticket. When a lot of independents and moderate Democrats wanted McCain in 2000, the Republican party really wanted Bush and therefore, they got Bush. I think McCain would have won easily in 2000. Instead of embracing the fact that many declared Democrats voted for McCain in primaries (like in Michigan), they accused those Dems of trying to throw the race by voting for someone who couldn't win. They never considered that those Dems would have really voted for him. The schism has been there, it's just growing. This year, the Republicans seem to be realizing that the extreme conservative right is not the popular opinion and they need to move to a more moderate stance to get the independents and the "Reagan Democrats" that they talked so much about in 2000, but couldn't win over.

It's the same basic issue that the Democrats have had in the previous elections. If Bush hadn't done so miserably in the past 4 years, I'm not sure the Dems would be doing as well as they are now.

ETA: They've already predicted on Meet the Press that the economy has nowhere to go but up so whoever wins would be able to claim that success.

I think you're from MI too, aren't you?

I actually know many people who voted for Romney just to split the ticket so that it would be harder to pick a candidate, since Obama wasn't on the ticket. I was not one of them...but I know many.

My biggest problem with Palin rests in the fact that for absolutely no reason, people seem to think she's some sort of ideal role model for women my age. Sorry - I'm not inspired by someone who refused to pay for rape kits because they provided emergency contraception. And to call her a "role model for all women" during a debate is generalizing and insulting, Sen. McCain, because I agree with those above who says she is not particularly bright.

UGAalum94: Do you really think Palin has charisma? She's been slammed in the media for such stints as winking at the public during debates (what a dreadful move, Palin...), her terrible interviews with a variety of people and her lack of an ability to think on her feet. When has she ever shown any serious charisma??

Yes, I'm from MI. She's no role model of mine! I almost voted in the Republican primary since Obama wasn't on the ticket for the Dems. I would have voted for McCain if I'd gone that route. McCain didn't scare me as a candidate until he picked Palin for his ticket.

Agreed.

Before he picked Palin, I had said that if he won it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Now...

Not so sure on that one. I'd be pretty upset. Because I can't stand her, and the chances of her becoming president are fairly high considering McCain's age and health history.

I think a lot of that is, it's still questionable just how much effect a President can have on the economy. It's just an easy way for supporters of a particular President to tout that President's successes.

Education wise I'm just as qualified. Oh wait, more so because of a BA and a BS from the same University? I've done my research in Alaska as well, so I know plenty about how things work there. Though I haven't been mayor or governor, a hockey mom or a PTA president, I have been an adviser to a Greek org., coordinated blood drives, worked on numerous Habitat for Humanity Builds, represented youth in my church at a nationwide level, and I was in Girl Scouts as well as a camp counselor. I'm also president of the local Junior Circle and served in numerous student government positions, and will likely be chairing the board of my family foundation in the next years.

I forgot to add, I've also had a passport for 15 years, and I've left the country numerous times. Given the opportunity I'd shoot an animal from a helicopter too ;)

GO VANDALS!

Y'all better watch out for the Senusret I and VandalSquirrel ticket in 2016!

For KSigkid and CrackerBarrel:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...008/david-frum

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...d---it-s-alive-

:)