How will republicans deal with Palin in the primary?

I agree with you LIL, on her division of the party, and her us vs. them appeal only works on the extremes. The problem with her receiving the parties domination is that may force Ron Paul to the third party, and that will ensure another 4 years of Obama. I have a feeling they are pinning their hopes on Gingrich, I have seen a lot of him around, and besides some personal marriage issues, and some ethics issues he is pretty creatable. It wouldn't surprise me to see Sarah get Michael Steele's job as head of the RNC. She can bring in a lot of money, she will make a lot of money (and lets all face it, that is what is important to her), and it will keep her out of the race in 2012.

I hope you are wrong about Gingrich...if he gets it I am voting third party.

He has been talking about this for awhile, but if Democrats can hold on to the house and senate, it will pretty much be a lock for him to run, and probably win the nomination. Contract with America II!!

I hate to agree with you, but you are correct. I spoke with some people who said that they wouldn't for McCain because she could be come president, and many people were afraid of that. I am not worried about a women running the country, men have done a great job of screwing this country up, maybe a women can fix it (that's what they all THINK they do best, if you don't believe me get married).

lol

Taskr, do you remember how badly Palin did in her interview with Katie Couric? She certainly isn't an attack dog and Palin came out of that one looking pretty uninformed and foolish. And let's not forget how John McCain was forced to tell a scared little old lady that Obama was a decent man. He lost control over her during the campaign which made him look like a very ineffective leader. Her rallies were ugly and divisive because she favored terms like "real Americans", suggesting that anyone who didn't believe as she did wasn't a real American. She is the postergirl of division and no candidate for president wants that in a V.P.

Taskr, you couldn't have proven my point any better. The minute that Rudy, or Newt start to go after her, those people in the party that see 2008 happening all over again will come out and attack them much like they attacked EVERYONE that said ANYTHING about Palin. Not only that, but every other candidate running will be a man, it is always challenging attacking a women no mater who you are. I really think that it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Kenny, the problem with attacking her record is that she doesn't have much of one, and many parts of her record are questionable at best (trooper gate, travel expenses, love of earmarks). This is a women that hired a lobbyist to get as many earmarks as they could find, and then told the American people that she didn't like earmarks. The reason she left the state with all of that money is due to the Bush energy bill that allowed energy companies to charge what ever price they wanted. The funny part about using that to prove how great she is, is that most of that money came from THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The oil companies ran the price of oil up to $147 a barrel, thus Alaska's royalties went up dramatically, all on the back of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Then she took any earmark she could find which came from the tax dollars of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. So she has a record of REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, not managing her state. It isn't hard to find where to spend OTHER PEOPLES money KENNY!!!!

X, as usual I couldn't have said it better myself. If Palin ISN'T the candidate then you know people will want her to run, and if she does it will split the vote. The other issue you have is if Ron Paul decides to run, and again is shut out of the race, than he MAY (which is what I would like to see) run as a third party candidate (we all know he wanted to do that in 2008, but decided not to). At Paul's age he knows that he doesn't have to many more years in him to keep this up, but I am sure that he knows that if he runs as a third party candidate then he will give Obama a second term. Personally, I think that GOP is SCREWED!!!!

LIL, the problem is that it is going to cost about $400 Million to win the election in 2012. That means you are going to owe a lot of people a lot of favors, and that is going to cost a lot of money for the government. Until we change how we elect our officials, we will never be able to control our national budget.

Great debator----no matter which side wins..if someone that is not truely fiscally responsible wins (like Ron Paul) we are ALL screwed. Forget about the parties...I could care less about them...but we the american public will be screwed over big time.

I agree that she is way to divisive for the country, but look at the political climate right now. You have the Tea Party people that want nothing to do with uniting American, they want what they want, and don't care if they hurt someones feelings, or if they divide the country. There is a lot of anger in this country right now, and much of it is misdirected. In bad economic times people want to find someone to blame for their problems (god forbid they look in the mirror). Everyone knew that using your house as an ATM wasn't a good idea, but they did it anyways, and now they need someone to blame for that. We all know that spending every dime you get on stuff you WANT instead of NEED, isn't a good idea, but we do it anyways (and we need someone to blame for that too). Our country is just becoming to lazy, and it needs to change!!!

LIL, I agree with you that neither sides cares about the other, and that no one cares about how the other side feels. However, both sides are worried about how the swing voters see them, use hiring a black man to run the RNC, and firing a black women because she trying to show people she learned that race shouldn't matter anymore. "As for the Tea Party people...I don't see fiscal responsibility as a party issue...I think it is an American issue. All of us should be (and I think are) concerned about our level of debt and spending." Not so fast. You have the republicans that don't want the Bush tax cuts to expire which cost about $800 Billion a year. That money could be used to pay down the debt, but republicans are to worried about the rich to do something about it. If you really want to go after spending, then look at the department of defense which is one of the largest expenditure in the budget. But, again republicans don't want that to be cut do to their needs for campaign dollar from defense contractors. Democrats don't want to stop spending because they feel that it will save the economy, but they have to start to cut spending or that will destroy the economy. I felt that way before the Tea Party was even a thought. The problem is that many people look at bail outs and welfare in a narrow view, and don't see the bigger picture. The bailouts of Wall Street were necessary, but they should have been connected to Financial Reform right away. Welfare for the poor pails in comparison to corporate welfare, but no one wants to end either. I agree that we need more personal responsibility in this country, from the bottom up. But, I don't think that the harshness of that do it on your own is a great idea. Society isn't measured by it's most wealthy members, but how it treats it's poorest.

greatdebater- you know no one on either side seems to care about the "other" sides feels or uniting the country. Boths idea of "uniting" is agree completely with me. Not compromise. Not taking the other into consideration. It is all about forcing the "other" side to bend to their will. As for the Tea Party people...I don't see fiscal responsibility as a party issue...I think it is an American issue. All of us should be (and I think are) concerned about our level of debt and spending. I don't think we should have to compromise on somethings...like the constitution, our liberties and our rights. You actually agree with them with on your last part of your statement that people need to look in the mirror and realize they did it to themselves. It is just the Tea party does not believe in bailing them out for it..not with tax payer money...you messed up...you deal with it yourself. They would also agree that this country has become lazy...they want more personal responsibility. People being more responsible for their lives instaed of depending on the government (tax payers) to take care of them or fix their problems. Fail or succeed...you do it on your own.

There were very many attacks on Sarah Palin that completely and one hundred percent crossed the line. People don't forget that easily. There was also no question of blatant bias by many news organizations in the media. The problem was not about the voters coming it out. It was about the whole process of how they got there, with the ACORN buses and a few other questionable acts about telling who people to vote for instead of letting them make their own decisions. But as far as going on the attack, well, I am not sure just rolling over and taking it would have done her much good. It worked for President Obama because he had something she didn't, the backing of most of the press core. So, she would have gotten hit for just taking it which would go against her basic personality or come out swinging. Frankly, I'd rather see someone fight for something than to just roll over. As far as the whole birther issue, the press did more to fight against it than President Obama ever did. Remember they still loved him then. (Even the famous Bill O'Reilly got in on the defense.)

Yet, Sarah Palin's wardrobe was a non-issue and it got more coverage from CNN, MSNBC, and the other networks than President Obama's entire political record generated.

Sierras, I personally don't think that she was treated that badly by the press, I think that she handled it the wrong way. Instead of just blowing off the inappropriate questions, or comments, she attacked them, and that created more problems. If she would have handled this much like Obama has handled the hole Birthers issue, she would have been fine. Actually her answer to the question was vague at first, then she said that she reads all of them, which we all know is impossible. I personally thought it was a softball question, but it showed how brainwashed she was by the McCain people, and people don't want a Manchurian candidate. I agree with you that the more people that vote the better off the country is, but that was the OPPOSITE of what republicans were saying in 2008. Many were angry about the huge black vote, and after the election you heard a lot more calls for means test for voting. You are correct that she brings a lot of energy, and a lot of press to everything she does. I just wonder if that can be a bad thing for the party if she doesn't win, or if she does and forces Ron Paul to a third party.

As sad as it is!!!!

Kind of explains why Washington is the way it is.

So you think people should just vote for any democrat on the ballot? That's sad, although rather common. Do you think they're all the same or do you just not care to research your candidates?

Barrack, is that you????? Did you read that off of a bumper sticker. I like Barrack, and I think that he can turn the country around, but just voting for a party isn't always the best thing in the world to do. There are good and bad candidates for offices, and just because you agree with the leader of the party doesn't mean there aren't bad people in it.

You do realize that there are good and bad in each party. Voting party lines instead of for the individual candidate is a good way to get the bad ones in office. We should be only supporting good candidates...no matter the party they are in.