Pretend this FICTIONAL meeting took place to understand the need for dumbing down of the GOP.

A father (imaginary) of the pseudo conservative movement in a back room with his backers and handlers in mock seriousness stands and says, "Greetings my fellow conservatives. America needs to get back to its roots... A poignant pause - high camp acting...then the punch line, "America was founded by and for tax cheats and smugglers, and as true conservatives, we have to make America safe for tax cheats and smugglers once again!"

A hardy har-har and we're off to 28 years of relentless destruction of every hard learned lesson of boom-bust American economics, driving destruction of all meaningful regulation of "business", systematic emaciation of core safety net provisions from the new deal to the great society. Can't have those welfare people driving Cadillacs - better they drive worn out Hondas!

Under the guise of conservatism, we have wink, winked our way to govermnent by an ubiquitous hoard hired into federal jobs who pledged in secret or with a wink to be blind to price fixing, collusion, pure naked pilferage, etc., etc., of every penny to be had from every source public, private, domestic or international.

And now, the cover blown, the game known and transparent to every honest thinking American, the piper has begun finally to play. What last hope is there for those addicted to slopping at the trough, lipstick or no? The "dumbing down of the GOP".

Send out a pitbull in lipstick to prance and wink, sounding the clarion call to the six-pack lumpenproletariat (read 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, beggars, and other flotsam of society - Marx/Wickipedia) to rescue the high living destroyers of America by one vote. Tricksters always back up their bets (The Chief Justice was the one vote last time).

Knowing full well that prosecutions are coming, don't shrink in shame, demand $700 billion unmarked ransom to tide over for the next four to eight years!!!

Probably not going to work but the money junkie, gotta try!

(this rant is purely fictional, resemblance to any actual persons, pets, farm animals or supreme court justices, past or present is strictly coincidental)

Obama has been in elected office for 12 consecutive years. That's more than Reagan was, more than Carter was, more than George Bush was, in fact double the amount of time Bush was in elected office, the same as Clinton and Bush One, and a couple of years less than John Kennedy. Some of those years were in Illinois-- hardly the minor leagues of American politics--, and he represented more people in his state senate district than live in the entire state of Alaska. He was an extremely effective state legislator. He's been an extremely effective United States senator.

Not to mention, Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor and has spent a number of years on the ground doing yeoman's service as a community organizer.

The man is a phenomenal communicator, and inspires millions of people all over the world with his story.

Besides, what executive experience does John McCain have?

...when your aim is to prove that government can't do anything right.

Looking at this in a bi-partisan manner, inexperience is much tougher to overcome as a Veep candidate than a Prez candidate. Why? Because the latter have a year or two to fine-tune their policies, stump speeches and talking points. In short, if they're lucky enough to survive the long primary season, they're seasoned national pols by the end.

Not so with Veep candidates. They're dropped into the cauldron with only three months to go, and they have to quickly co-opt and defend all their running mates' policies. Look at Palin's stuggle with foreign policy experience question. Her best answer would be to say, "I'm a Governor, so it's obviously limited, but I think sound judgement is more important than experience." The problem is she can't say this because it's Obama's argument against McCain. So she has to start spouting nonsense about Russian fly zones and Putin's head. Likewise, I think Obama would have made a mistake in choosing a Kaine or Sebelius. Not to say either would have struggled as badly as Palin did in her interviews, but neither would have provided him the solid policy foundation and knowledge of the national press as Biden does.

In terms of Conason's question, I agree with an earlier poster that's it's about the Christian Right, but I also think you had two candidates -- McCain and Bush Sr. -- who were desperate to excite their base and provide a little juice to their candidacy. Thus, they took a gamble.

Enough already with Sarah Palin.

She's a mom of 5 with a household income of under $200K for 2007. She's been thrust into the spotlight of presidential politics == and has risen to the occasion == in less than 2 months.

Yes, I'm sure she hasn't risen to the elite standards that the MSM, or Salon.com, has set for our leaders. After all, she'd have to walk in the footsteps of the liberal virtuosos, such as Nancy Pelosi...

PUH-LEASE... You people break my heart. Such snobs. Such 'useful idiots'. Be careful what you wish for.

D.

Since when is being a hockey Mom (or Dad for that matter) a qualification for Vice-President or President?

"Why aren't more conservatives disgusted that their party nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the vice presidency."

Well, darlins, when you put it that way, who should disagree?? Such an innocuous premise...

Well, since Palin is a twit, and the real issue is the presidential nominee, let's instead talk about Mr. B.H. Obama. Qualifications? Just Google 'community organizer', 'acorn', 'chicago', 'ayers', ad infinitum.

Is this what you really want?? Have you 'useful idiots' actually extrapolated your biases to the possibility of Mr. B.H. Obama actually taking control of this country?

Fannie/Freddie and your lib allies already took this economy to the abyss. Who is is who will fund your nonsense?? The 'Middle Class'??. Seems you've already tapped out with the govt and Wall Street.

Your ideology will always fail. It always must. Your ideology profits failure. And will always produce failure. You can tax and criminalize success as much as you'd like, but without it, you are just a bunch of broke bureaucrats with a bunch of broke constituents -- unless you 'mobilize' with doom, gloom, and a complete dis=incentive to success. Good luck with that philosophy.

Yeah, CHANGE. Change.

Change of this sort is nothing new. History has relegated this sort of change to the 'ash=heaps of history' as Ms. Thatcher once said.

Enjoy the moment. You 'nearly' got it.

But the American people have worked too hard, and have sacrificed too much, for the Saul Alinsky political 'Rules for Radicals' to take over our country. You are doomed to fail.

D