Here's a thought;

[PCIntern]

What if the whole Republican 2008 Campaign was about bringing in Sarah Palin, irrespective of the candidate at the top of the ticket? What if the 'brain-trust', the Buchanan/Kristol/Various-and-sundry-shithead-types crowd began their efforts to make her 'palatable' to the masses...knowing full-well that she was initially embarrassing and would submarine the McCain campaign, but they didn't care, for they were looking at the long-haul? So they got all, or almost all, the dirty laundry out early: the weird family relations, the ignorance, the misuse of funds, the whole Alaska shootin'-match, all out and exposed so it becomes 'old news'. So McCain lost...they didn't care even as they didn't much care that Carter beat Ford, for they had bigger plans.

Anyone who thinks that she's unelectable better go back to 1969 when we were making big jokes about Ronnie Rayguns and who in the heck ever thought that he'd become President whom the Republicans would put on Mt. Rushmore if they could. The media will play their little games and then run out of bad press...when those stories are revisited, Buchanan will screaming, "That's old news. That cat's out of the bag." And everyone will just nod, and we here at DU will gnash our bloodstained teeth and whimper.

She needs to be discredited and discarded NOW.

[cowcommander]

1. You give the republicans too much credit

They aren't THAT smart, lol!

[PCIntern]

2. I heard that in the late 60's...

I give them a lot of credit...they've managed to completely fuck up this country and AT LEAST 45+% of the populations still votes for them..

[RKP5637]

3. Quite true. To me the republicans will do anything to be in power even if

they destroy the country in the process.

[blues90]

6. can't rule out the Reagan democrats either .nt

[rurallib]

7. you know they have had a lot of long term projects

that we have failed to identify or have scoffed at when we heard it.
- They started in 1964 recovering from an ass-kicking of the conservatives by taking over school boards and city councils.
- Lewis Powell headed up a project to get (in their view) a less biased media. Later it turned to owning the media.
- IIRC think tanks were laughed at. Now they are all over the fucking place, slanting everything.

All that to say that you may be on to something.
Owning most of the TV, radio and newspapers in this country and setting the agenda for those they don't (hint NPR), they can make a star or serious candidate out of any Bozo.

[brewens]

4. I'm inclined to think she's the best thing we have going for us.

I don't think she is capable of appealing to a majority of voters. We should be hoping she get the Republican nomination. If she runs and she doesn't get it, it will be her Republican rivals that take her down.

[PCIntern]

5. "I've heard this before"

[customerserviceguy]

9. If her Rethuglican rivals take her down

it's only because they perceive President Obama as vulnerable. If he succeeds in getting the economy back up to steam, they will just let her be the sacrificial lamb for 2012. On the other hand, if he shapes up to be the Jimmy Carter of our time, whoever the Repukes nominate will be a serious contender, and we had all better worry.

[customerserviceguy]

8. You make some interesting points

I mean, after all, what was a proper neo-con to do in 2008? Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were getting zero traction, all they had were the choice of Rudy Ghouliani, the country-clubber, Mike Hucksterbee, the nanny stater, John McLame, the pro-amnesty old fart, or Mittens Romney, who would just give a talking point to Mormon missionaries if he were merely nominated.

At the point in time where McInsane had the lock on the nomination, why not turn your efforts to the next generation of Rethuglican leadership? I know that when I lurked over at Freeptardville, they were practically salivating at the possibility that the old guy would pick her. Maybe somebody pulled enough strings to get their way.

I mean, there's a tradition here to continue, with the losing VP candidate becoming a viable Presidential candidate later:

In 2004, Edwards lost, he was a front runner in 2008, he might have won if Barack Obama had stayed out.

In 2000, Lieberman lost, he was one of the front running candidates for 2004.

In 1996, Jack Kemp lost, but really didn't go much of anywhere from there, although he was often mentioned in the run-up to 2000.

In 1992, Dan Quayle lost, and was one of those who was in the running for 1996.

In 1988, Lloyd Bentson lost, and didn't go anywhere from there.

In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro lost, ditto the above.

In 1980, Walter Mondale lost, and was the Democratic nominee in 1984.

In 1976, Bob Dole lost, and was the Repuke nominee in 1996.

In 1972, Sargent Shriver lost, and went nowhere.

In 1968, Edmund Muskie lost, and was the front runner for the Democratic nomination before the 1972 primaries.

Clearly, in seven of the last ten elections, the losing VP nominee went on to brighter political hopes, if only temporarily. Only in the odd cases of Bentson, who was put on the ticket because of his gravitas, Ferraro, who was put on the ticket because of her gender, and Shriver, who was put on the ticket as a last-minute replacement, did the losing VP nominee fade completely into the sunset. And those are all on our side, Rethug VP nominees go on to bigger and better things.

You clearly have a good point.