And look who wins… McCain, W, Dole, Bush, Reagan.

People love outsider dark horses because their warts have not been exposed. Jindal was all the rage unitl he gave one primetime address, Sanford was all the rage until he was vetted. Now, we live in the world of the perpetual campaign, getting a national organization running early means more than ever.

as I joked in another thread about our Savior-Of-The-Month (can be the “Only One”) thing again…. We all know far too much can/may happen between now and 2012, so I’ve gotta go back as we’ve had to so many times and remind — Can we focus on our 2010 Races first and right now? — Please!!!!!! Pretty Please!!!!!!!

That’s feasible. Waning voter enthusiasm alone wil keep many 2008 voters at home. Why vote when you still have to pay for your gas and mortgage.

The worst thing that could happen to the GOP 2012 candidate is the GOP taking back the House and the Senate.

he looks like a rock star. Pawlenty gave an excellent speech in NH recently. Very good perfromance.

But the point is that this country may be tired of high drama by 2012. That is the whole point of bringing up Daniels. At some point, the country is just going to want a steady hand that isnt going to rock the boat, so that they may get back to regular life. I like Palin and her rock star appeal, but, in the back of my mind, I think the drama free, steady hand candidate in the field may be a dark horse. And T-Paw has been building a national base for a year now, which is invaluable unlike the others. He’s an underdog, but he’s a realistic sleeper.

That could get into triple digit vote totals in every state.

Tell me, just how much did every Romney vote cost in the 2008 primaries?

Even Obama can’t print enough money to get Romney elected.

ticket would have been beaten? God would have struck them both dead by September 15th on humanitarian grounds.

I said she quit the governor office early, she is gaffe prone, and has very little experience. I think those are all valid criticisms, so why don’t you counter them Scope?

“Sarah knows what she’s doing” isn’t a worthwhile response to them.

They’re easily refuted, so just refute them, rather than letting somebody go away thinking you can’t.

For example, “Governor for less than 3 years” beats the hell out of “Senator for less than 2.”

Notes on her hand? Stupid argument. POTUS can’t go anywhere without a TelePrompTer — and people who AREN’T elitist jerks might just find the fact that she had to — ONE TIME — jot some quick notes on her hand, to be engaging. It shows she, unlike The Won, understands her own humanity.

Third, Couric got the responses she deserved for asking stupid, People Magazine questions of a Candidate for VP.

See how easy that is, and I didn’t even have to accuse anyone of being a moby.

She is telegenic and raises money? So why is she the messiah of the conservative movement?

The largest majority of candidates, running for any office, while campaigning, don’t get down into the weeds with policy positions. They stay somewhat generic, so as to not alienate any of their voters. At this time, Palin isn’t even running for anything. Taking her at her word right now, she is for a strong military, and national defense, she is for fiscal conservatism with a healthy dose of personal responsibility, and you know she is socially conservative without focusing on any social issues for any length of time. That is generic.

As you have said, she has plenty of time to develop specific policies and plans. It doesn’t hurt her to get daily briefings and updates from those in Washington who keep her informed of what is currently happening in the House and Senate. She wouldn’t be walking into the pitfalls blindly, and, has the opportunity to work with consultants to develop alternative plans.

For now, I think she is on the right track with as you say, collecting political capital, a war chest, and building up the base of voters she will need, should she decide to run. So many put those critical elements in first place, in order to be even considered a viable candidate.

I doubt that is a one of Palin’s hobbies.

She does have a broad base and can gather a crowd. But I’m totally bored of celebrity politics. That’s what you do when people can’t understand issues.

Fer Chrssakes, Raven; we have a coaltion Senate because of Her. We’ve held the Senate with Republicans since the early ’80s! Remember, she, Hollis, and Kim were BFFs when they were doing ACES and AGIA. Funny how her Democrat buddies abandoned her, isn’t it?

Since you are proving yourself too short on memory to remember where I stood on her being VP (granted, it’s not like I’m a Contributor) and too lazy to go back through my history to find out (I used to expect better of you):

I Like Palin. I was VERY much on her side in ’08. Still am. I worked for her and tried to help get her elected. I will do so again, even if she proves by running in ’12 that she’s not all I think she is.

But I am not the people who voted against her and qill use her “quitting” in very effective campaign ads.

She quit the governor office early, she is gaffe prone, and has very little experience. I think those are all valid criticisms, so why don’t you counter them. None of those are emotional, they are all based in reality and on facts. They are all reasons why I don’t think she would be a good nominee for president in 2012.

Plenty in Anchorage and Willow.

Which is one of the reasons that I prefer discussion of policy to discussion of politicians, but I digress. I suppose that you can’t really prove either, and I doubt that I’ll change your mind, but for me, many of her actions (particularly her leaving of the AK Governorship) seem decidedly non-altruistic. I don’t have a problem one seeing altruistic motives behind Palin’s actions, but I do have a problem when one accuses others of being RINOs, un-conservative, or Palin-haters. Both altruistic and non-altruistic motivations have evidence to back them; we should be wary of claiming that our respective interpretations of Palin are authoritative, IMO.

When you see someone who has ideas that they really think will help, and is fighting for them; or they have skills (Mitch Daniels) that they bring to the table that no one else has; I get the feeling that they are motivated to serve. But with Sarah Palin I don’t hear any original ideas that seem to motivate her, there are just sound bites reacting to current events and criticizing Obama; there’s only buzz, no there there.

Then there was the quitting the job she was elected to do in AK (not exactly evidence of dedication to serve) and instead taking high-dollar, high-profile positions that kept her in the spotlight. And this current “retard” controversy where she clearly played politics rather than principle– going after and backing off people who did the same thing based on not upsetting her fans.

Nothing really solid, but when you watch people for long enough you get ideas about personalities. Maybe it’s a girl thing, but I just don’t ever get a selfless vibe from her.