David : One scenario I have heard is for a Palin / Gingrich ticket. This makes excellent sense --in 2009.
The question concerns November 2010, The GOP is in disarray ( to understate the case ^ 2 ) The next election offers a chance to identify a new hero. We can add Jindal to the list of possibilities, but he has already been badly smeared for no justifiable reason, as a "lightweight," and it is an open question if he can recover his luster. McCain is done, kaput, fini. I'd vote for Romney if it came down to it, but I kinda think he shot his ( political ) wad in 2008. So. let's see what 2010 brings Billy --------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 7/12/2009 8:19:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Maybe. I do think that the political obituaries NOW are a bit premature. She will still be in office for another 2 weeks, and it's a ways until 2012 anyhow. There is also the "Who else have they got?" problem. Romney--The gay groups would like nothing more than to take down a Mormon. Huckabee--Or any overtly Christian candidate. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, for instance. Paul--Getting too old. McCain--Would prove the insanity of the Republican party insiders. There are Senators that the party hierarchy might approve, but will the voters? There are House members that the voters might approve, but will the party hierarchy? David _ "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."--P. J. O'Rourke [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: (http://www.sfgate.com/) Sarah Palin, political genius Willie Brown Sunday, July 12, 2009 The pundits are wrong. Conventional wisdom is wrong. Sarah Palin's decision to step down as Alaska governor was a brilliant move. Palin has some of the best political instincts I have ever seen. She became a pop-culture superstar overnight when John McCain made her his veep pick, and she's still second only to President Obama among politicians the public is interested in. Even in liberal San Francisco, she'd be front-page news if she ever came to town. But that kind of celebrity comes at a high price. What a lot of people don't know is that Palin entered Alaska politics as a reformer attacking the corruption of the state's Republican establishment. As such, she was the darling of the Democrats - until she hooked up with McCain. After the election, with Palin back home but positioning herself for a 2012 presidential run, it was clear she would catch nothing but ridicule from Alaska's Democrats. It was not going to be pretty. If Palin wants to play on the national field, she has to be free to move around. She has to be able to drop into Indiana, Ohio or Tennessee and help Republican candidates raise money. She has to be available for radio and TV. She has to be ... free to roam around the country, safe in the knowledge that things will pretty much take care of themselves back home. Instead, Palin faced the prospect of being constantly pinned down in a state that is a day and a half away from the rest of America. She would have been totally isolated in every sense of the word. Now she can study up on issues where she is lacking and become a full-time political celebrity. The pundits call her a quitter, but let's be honest - the pundits never liked her to begin with. Better to take one hit for stepping down and move on than to stay in Alaska and die a death by a thousand cuts. Governor or not, Palin is still the biggest star in the Republican galaxy. After all, who else have they got? ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Want to sound off? E-mail [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) . This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle _© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc._ (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/info/copyright/) | _Privacy Policy_ (http://www.sfgate.com/pages/privacy/) | _Feedback_ (http://www.sfgate.com/feedback/) | _RSS Feeds_ (http://www.sfgate.com/rss/) | _FAQ_ (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/faq.shtml) | _Site Index_ (http://www.sfgate.com/index/) | _Contact_ (http://www.sfgate.com/staff/) ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com_ (http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com) Archives at _http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/) _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
