I’m serious here, though. It would be great if we could have just one national election where both sides gathered enough dignity to reject out of principle the clowns and populists that we’ve been getting the last 20 years. It used to be that when something was uncovered in the vetting process, the proposed candidate was rejected and the next one stepped forward. Now, they just take the loudest Flavor Of The Month and rely on a massive carpet-bombing advertising campaign to push the candidate through. I swear, if Paul Ruebens had a high enough political Q rating amongst a certain demographic of voters, whatever party was closest to that demographic would run him in a New York minute.
Hey, try to see it from Palin’s point of view. She needs a vice-presidential candidate who’ll make her look good in comparison and do you know how hard it is to find somebody like that?
It is merely the best ticket the Repubs can put together.
While I do think that (right now, at least), the Democrats are better for the country than the Republicans, and while a Palin/Bachmann ticket would be good for the Democrats (and hence, for the country) in the short run, in the long run, it’s terrible. Give any single party too much power, and things will start going wrong. The Democrats (or any other political party) need a counterweight, and that counterweight needs to be sane. If we had a real, viable third party, I’d say we could afford to let the Republicans self-destruct, but as it is, we need them, and we need them to be sane. In the long run, it’d be far, far better for the country for the Republicans to run the best they have to offer (and to win sometimes, even) not the worst.
What you’re saying might have been true when the Rockefeller Republicans dominated the GOP and Goldwater’s movement conservatism was marginal crankery. Not, however, since 1980. The GOP can’t be sane until it drums the movement conservatives out of the party, and do you see any sign of that happening? I don’t.
If a third party to the left of the Dems emerged, then we would have two sane choices. But I don’t see any sign of that happening either.
I don’t want the Republican party to self-destruct. I want them to stop their self-destruction. Right now the party has become dominated by conservative idealogues who feel that they are the only ones who entitled to rule. When they win, they ignore any viewpoints other than their own. And when they lose, they refuse to accept reality and try to alter the system so they’re back in power.
They’ve become like the proverbial mule that needs to get whacked in the head by a two by four just so you get its attention. And a Palin/Bachman ticket gettting three electoral votes in the 2012 election may be that blow to the head.
After that, the Republican party might wake up and start thinking again. They can take control back from the conservatives and tell them that while they have a seat at the table they don’t own the table. And they can start listening to the voters instead of yelling at them.
I don’t see any sign of it right now, but that doesn’t mean I can’t hope. Someone other than Palin/Bachmann getting the nomination, for instance, might be such a sign.
Now, maybe a Palin/Bachmann ticket would result in the sort of electoral clue-by-four that you’re talking about, but if so, that just makes them running a necessary evil, not a good.
Stolen. It’s mine now. Back off!
The trouble is that even if a Palin/Bachmann ticket lost very badly, for the duration of the campaign their views would be treated very seriously and respectfully by the media, and, ever after, would become part of mainstream political discourse. The center of gravity of American politics would be shifted even further to the right. That is what happened with Goldwater, more or less, and we are still paying the price.
on one hand, we suffered through 8-years of a marionette presidency and we didn’t fare that poorly
on the other, holy fucking shit.
Hey, you’ll have to take that up with whomever it was that I stole it from.
No, if anyone other than an arch-conservative standard bearer runs, the conservatives will spin it as evidence that they’re right as always. Let’s say Romney gets the 2012 nomination. If he wins, then conservatives will say “See? That’s the voters rejecting Obama liberalism.” If he loses, they’ll say “See? Romney was too centrist. The voters wanted a conservative to run.” Keep in mind, these are the people who think the reason why McCain lost in 2008 was because he wasn’t conservative enough. No explanation of why the supposedly conservative electorate that rejected McCain went on to vote for Obama.
What needs to happen is for the conservatives to have their play. Give them enough rope. Let them nominate Palin and Bachmann. Heck, let them nominate Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Let the conservative dream ticket run. And let it crash and burn. Only then will the Republican Party take the steering wheel away from the people who’ve been driving the party and the country off a cliff.
I think the more interesting question is what happens after Palin campaigns for Bachmann and she loses. What are the chances that her district has gotten tired of being embarrassed by her and votes her out of office?
You’re assuming her district is in fact embarrassed by her. From all I’ve read, it’s a deeply red district.
I fear that you are right and hope that you are not.
And Massachusetts is a deeply blue state. There are no guarantees.