Platapus' wacky theory on what the GOP is up to.

[Platapus]

Here is my wacky theory of what the Republican Party is up to in 2008.

As a disclaimer, I am a registered Republican, coming from a long line of Republicans in my family. Politically I am a moderate with leanings toward Conservatism. As a moderate I look with equal disdain toward either extreme.

I believed that the GOP had written off 2008. They realize that public opinion is pretty low for the current administration. The GOP is looking forward to 2012 and beyond.

When the 2008 campaign first started and no one really knew who would be running, I feel that the GOP realized that their chances were pretty low. This has changed with the nomination of the candidates. As the polls suggest this is going to be a very close race.

The GOP choose McCain as the throwaway candidate. This is his last time he can run. The GOP needed to put someone up in 2008 while the GOP was planning on 2012.

It would not be disastrous for the GOP if a Democrat was elected in 2008.

It would be advantageous for the GOP to have either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama elected in 2008. This would give the GOP four years to snipe at the democrats.

With the unpopular war in Iraq; A viet-nam like war in AF; Economy in the gutter; world reputation in tatters; what better time to “allow” the democrats to win. “here you fix the problem.....if you can”

Politically it is very easy to be the rebels chanting change change. But once they are in the office, now they have to produce. Now the reality of the office can overshadow the rebellious cause of change change change. It is the nature of our system that more will remain the same than will change in the Democrats first term.

The Democrats will find it far easier to state the problem than to solve it. Being responsible for solving the problems places them in a politically vulnerable position that can be exploited in 2012.

Since very little will change in the 2009-2013 term (changes take a lot of time), the GOP can build up a lot of disappointment with the new Democratic administration.

Their slogan would be “hey you had a Democrat as President, look at what did not happen, time to go back to the new and improved GOP”.

In 2012, the GOP can then have their “real” candidate all groomed. With President Obama now being on the defensive, the GOP candidate can have the easier job of advocating change. Then President Obama will be in the position of defending reality while the GOP is selling the future.

I feel that the selection of the GOP Vice Presidential candidate supports this. The GOP can now garner the perceived advantage of nominating a woman as VP, at the same time that the DNC choose not to nominate a popular woman candidate. Whether this is truly a political win or not is debate able. But since it is a throw-away position, might as well go for low-hanging fruit.

Since the GOP is writing off the 2008 election to focus on the 2012 election, who better to nominate? A black woman would be even better but Secretary Rice has already stated that she has no interest. Absent of black woman, the GOP choose a woman/wife/mother figure. How better to counter the claim that the GOP is the elitist party? How did they come up with Palin? Probably had no one else willing to risk their future political careers.

McCain has nothing to risk as this is the last time he will be able to run. But any other viable GOP candidate might be a little wary of risking their campaign as a throw-away.

Governor Palin has no political career to risk if she is “branded a loser” in 2008. She served her purpose of being the first woman nominee and afterward she can go back to her local government career none for the worse.

From the get-go of this campaign, it did not seem like my party was really serious about 2008. I truly believe that the GOP realized that their chances in 2008 were pretty slim.

Senator McCain is not exactly a shaker and mover in the Republican Party. He is not even widely liked. His Senatorial career has been average at best. His senatorial leadership has been limited to Indian Affairs and Commerce committees. His position as minority leader on the Armed Services Committee is based on seniority.

So have been shaking my Republican head ruefully trying to figure out what my party is up to. I can come up with two hypotheses.

1. Senator McCain is truly the best of the best of the best that my party can nominate for President. In that case I am very worried about my party’s future.

2. Senator McCain is a throw-away for the 2008 campaign that the GOP predicted they would lose. The GOP is focusing on 2012 and beyond.

Just a wacky idea to spark some conversation here.

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting summation; but don't forget that in 1992 Bill Clinton was a 'throwaway candidate' for the Democrats, and look how that turned out.

[1480]

I too am a registered Republican who resides in blue state. Looking seriously at the choices that the GOP trotted out for the primary, you can say pretty much that it was "anyone but McCain." Maybe the original plan was to "throw away" the election and come back strong in 2012 as you posited.

Conservatives do not like him much, and liberals don't like him much. Could this be the very definition of being a "moderate"?

I'm beginning to believe that the party now has something to believe in.

I think the party is banking on three things.

1. Obama will put off conservatives so much in the coming weeks that instead of apathy they come out to vote in droves just to keep him out of the white house.
(which should not be the sole reason to vote for a leader)

2. Brilliant move in naming Palin as a running mate. The timing was perfect, and she is as far away removed from the beltway as possible. Plus, she is more of a conservative then McCain is. (I have my doubts that the motive behind her being tabbed as a running mate, is a token gesture by the GOP to say "hey, we tried that in 2008")

3. They have tried to blunt any offensive that the democrats can launch at them about the GOP being the "same", business as usual, etc.

It will be an exciting election period.

[Platapus]

Interesting summation; but don't forget that in 1992 Bill Clinton was a 'throwaway candidate' for the Democrats, and look how that turned out.

I wonder if McCain wins in 2008 will the GOP exclaim "oh Sh!t, now what? We have McCain and Palin" .

The thing that mostly concerns me about the selection of Palin for VP is the age of McCain.

The office of President is a killer. Look at the Presidents we have had since WWII. Look at their picture when they entered office and when they left office. This job ages the President and ages them hard. Look at the Bushes and Bill Clinton. Look at what the office did to them.

In the US, the life expectancy of males is 75.15 years. McCain just turned 72 and he is not in the best of health now. I have serious concerns that McCain will not be able to medically survive the stresses of being the POTUS.

[Digital_Trucker]

If McCain doesn't survive then we're in the same boat as if Obama gets elected, IMHO.

[Peto]

That's very will thought out and well written Platapus :up:. An interesting theory that may embrace more fact than fiction...

Here's another possibility regarding Palin as VP. If she can make a strong showing in this election period, the GOP could potentially put her on the short list for Presidential Nominee in 2012. :hmm:

[Schroeder]

May I ask what GOP is standing for?:oops:

[Platapus]

May I ask what GOP is standing for?:oops:

GOP = Grand Old Party. another name for the Republican party.

[Schroeder]

Thanks.:D

[Platapus]

The GOP is a party, it is not especially old and whether it is grand or not is debatable these days :damn:

[UnderseaLcpl]

A nice assesment. Similar thoughts have crossed my mind a few times, but I have 2 questions.

1) What do you mean when you say that the G.O.P. "chose" McCain? Do you mean the party proper or registered Republican voters?

2) McCain was by no means the guaranteed winner of the nomination. Especially early in the primaries. Or do you disagree with that? If so, please tell me how I am misunderstanding your position and/or the political situation.


Thanks

-thelance

[geetrue]

Here's another wacky thing happening in the GOP convention ...

They my have to postpone or cancel due to the hurricane coming.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Conventions/story?id=5692438&page=1

Sen. John McCain and his wife, Cindy -- are suggesting that this week's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., may get scaled back or even suspended

[Platapus]

.

1) What do you mean when you say that the G.O.P. "chose" McCain? Do you mean the party proper or registered Republican voters?

It is the RNC who actually chooses who the Republican party nomination (it is the same for the Democrats in which it would be the DNC). The RNC executive committee (EC) must vet all candidates who wish to run for office as a Republican. Only those candidates who are vetted by the EC can be considered for nomination by the delegates of the RNC. Naturally, no one can be forced to run for office. This is why I used the phrase "chose". The RNC EC has the authority to decide whether to vet or not to vet a specific candidate. In this case, whether they run this term or a later term. This is usually done cooperatively with the prospective candidate. No candidate would get far by forcing the EC to vet them. It is all based on mutual cooperation.

The DNC has similar rules and procedures.

McCain was by no means the guaranteed winner of the nomination. Especially early in the primaries. Or do you disagree with that? If so, please tell me how I am misunderstanding your position and/or the political situation.

I fully agree that in the early phases of the primaries that John McCain was not a guaranteed winner. It is my belief that at the start of this election season, the RNC was predicting Senator Clinton to be 20-30 percentage points ahead of who ever the RNC put up.

This is why the RNC vetted the throw-away candidate of John McCain. If he were elected great, if not, no big loss as there was always 2012.

I think the RNC is surprised that the polls are so close. I think that if they knew it would be so close they would have run a "real" candidate.

But, of course, this is just my wacky opinion.

[SS107.9MHz]

The office of President is a killer. Look at the Presidents we have had since WWII. Look at their picture when they entered office and when they left office. This job ages the President and ages them hard. Look at the Bushes and Bill Clinton. Look at what the office did to them.



Yeah, and look at Kennedy, his stay in the whitehouse was MURDER! (Sorry this one' a little bit on the dark side!!!:dead: )

[SS107.9MHz]

This is why the RNC vetted the throw-away candidate of John McCain. If he were elected great, if not, no big loss as there was always 2012.

I think the RNC is surprised that the polls are so close. I think that if they knew it would be so close they would have run a "real" candidate.

But, of course, this is just my wacky opinion.
Crashing into the thread, on a citizen of the world position... The thing is, the GOP would never benefit of a, as you say, "real" candidate... The actual rise of McCain as the Rep Candidate was a surprise to most, specially to the great "barons" of the party... My perception about the planning of the upcoming elections as seen by the GOP is that thy were (until MacCain's nomination) a stillborn... It as been that way since at least the middle of this last term for GWB jr... That MacCain could achieve his nomination only proves that... Under normal circunstances the GOP would never allow him to run as candidate... He's kind of a rogue in the party and a n unconfortable candidate for many... If the party would come up with a more orthodox figure it would'd be crushed... It seems that people in the US want some change... Is MacCain an actual change relative to the current president in office... Probably not in terms of actual policies, maybe more in the execution of them...but actually I thing it's more of a perception of change... I actually like MacCain, I think everybody (except the GOP's Sharks) does, but I think he's more of a leader of the senate than president kind of person... I really think that even now the republicans are expecting (and hoping) for a crash n' burn of MacCain's campaign and try a comeback on 2012, but I don't think that MacCain's nomination was a "grand plan", just a lesser of two evils...

[baggygreen]

good analysis.

not much more to say really...

[OneToughHerring]

Platapus,

who in your opinion would this GOP "real candidate" been then if not McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Or maybe Ron Paul? :) How could they have gone against the popular wish of the republican voters and not chosen McCain? Has it ever happened that either of the parties have put up someone else then who wins the popular vote in the primaries?

I think the republicans will never get the full benefit out of Palin just because they didn't have any women candidates to be presidential candidates and having a woman come in at this stage will look like a trick. That and that their voter base will equally like and dislike the idea of a female VP. Meaning that even if they get some of the ex-Clinton fans to vote because of Palin there is probably an equal number who won't be voting because they have a problem with the idea of a woman as VP especially with McCain possibly succumbing to old age while in office.

[Platapus]

Platapus,

who in your opinion would this GOP "real candidate" been then if not McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Or maybe Ron Paul? :)


I don't have an answer for that. Perhaps my inability to answer this simple question is indicative of my disappointment in my party.

[OneToughHerring]

I also think that 2012 is still a long way off. A lot has already happened in the last couple of years, now it's ok to think that a woman might be the POTUS, or a black person. I predict that a lot will continue to change in the world, and this is regardless of whether Obama will be chosen.

Also, in US the president has a lot of power and I think that just in the interest of more efficient leadership there will at some stage be a lessening of the presidents powers. After this it will become a more and more symbolic position where indeed women, blacks, etc. can be chosen. The real power will trickle to the senate and congress and other places of power.

[1480]

I also think that 2012 is still a long way off. A lot has already happened in the last couple of years, now it's ok to think that a woman might be the POTUS, or a black person. I predict that a lot will continue to change in the world, and this is regardless of whether Obama will be chosen.

Also, in US the president has a lot of power and I think that just in the interest of more efficient leadership there will at some stage be a lessening of the presidents powers. After this it will become a more and more symbolic position where indeed women, blacks, etc. can be chosen. The real power will trickle to the senate and congress and other places of power.

You may be right, but since neither side of "the hill" can get together to agree on lunch, very doubtful that they would "cross the aisle" and be as one voice. Secondly, the "checks and balances" system in place kind of makes it difficult (not impossible) for one branch of government to become king of the hill, so to speak.

[nikimcbee]

I guess we know what obama will do: go to the UN for everything. I'm not sure what Palin will do? It was fun to listen to the radio talk shows last week. I heard both pro and against arguements. This week should be fun on the radio. I am happy that she has executive experience. I don't like senators, so this is a dissapointing election for me. On the surface, I think I like her, but I think we (the American voter) are picking people for the wrong reasons. A black man, just because of his race; a woman, just because of her gender:roll: . I'm not too interested in making history from this point of view. I want the most capable leader. I think both parties are more interested in shafting each other that putting the people first.

Atleast palin is a workin' woman. I just have little respect for anybody with the title of "Senator" as most of them are elitist.:roll: See john Kerry or Ted Kennady.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You may be right, but since neither side of "the hill" can get together to agree on lunch, very doubtful that they would "cross the aisle" and be as one voice.

God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.


Secondly, the "checks and balances" system in place kind of makes it difficult (not impossible) for one branch of government to become king of the hill, so to speak.

But having only two major parties makes it a lot more possible. If Democrats and Republicans ever decided to play nice and work together, "checks and balances" wouldn't mean much.

[msb80sc]

I automatically think that every party and every candidate running would want to win. Though this is a crazy world we live in. I have read some Hillery supporters would like to see Obama lose. It would give her another chance to run in 2012 if a republican is in office. Humm, so now are both parties throwing it away?

[1480]

You may be right, but since neither side of "the hill" can get together to agree on lunch, very doubtful that they would "cross the aisle" and be as one voice.

God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.


Secondly, the "checks and balances" system in place kind of makes it difficult (not impossible) for one branch of government to become king of the hill, so to speak.

But having only two major parties makes it a lot more possible. If Democrats and Republicans ever decided to play nice and work together, "checks and balances" wouldn't mean much.

The Lance, whatz up :88) .

We pay a lot of money in salary and benefits to a group of people who really do not accomplish much. When they do get anything done they call it compromise, notice the root word. "You do this for me and I'll take care of you later."

Either way you look at it, still a fubar way to run anything.

[SS107.9MHz]

God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.


Most reasonable thing i've read in days :)... National Unity governmentcan only exist in two kinds of situation:
- extreme external threat (a war, big natural disaster)
- Totalitarian regime (most probably when two factions join forces against another/s, kind of like the two major factions of the NAZI partie before the reichstag)

It´s highly improbable that in America democracy that should ever happen, it beinbg a profoundly bipartizan-like system...

[SS107.9MHz]

[quote=1480]
You may be right, but since neither side of "the hill" can get together to agree on lunch, very doubtful that they would "cross the aisle" and be as one voice.
God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.

[quote=1480]

Crap...Pardon for the unquotion! Sorry for the piracy UnderseaLcpl

[UnderseaLcpl]

Crap...Pardon for the unquotion! Sorry for the piracy UnderseaLcpl


I think everyone here has messed up a quote at some point or another. Certainly no need for an apology.