Is "Operation Palin" a good idea for those on the left, or not?

[RoadRage]

Poll question: Is "Operation Palin" a good idea for those on the left, or not?

Good, Bad or Ugly.. post your thoughts below!

[JoePhilly]

1. No. The more we openly MOCK HER, the more her nutty supporters demand ...

that she run.

Hell ... if we mock her enough, she might just get angry enough to give up the money and run.

[RoadRage]

3. I agree that the more we mock her, the more likely she is to run...

but is that really a bad thing? I mean - SOMEONE is going to run.. is it better to have it be a well qualified Republican that may gain support from Independants as well... or someone like Palin who makes the Wingnuts happy as heck.. but makes most moderates sick to their stomach?

If nothing else.. I'd like to see Republican's talk about Dem's crossing over to vote in the Republican Primary isn't "Fair" and is "Un-Democratic".. and then listen to Rush talk his way out of it.

[nxylas]

14. Are you kidding?

Rush is a master of smoke and mirrors. He can say something on Tuesday that is diametrically opposite to what he said on Monday and swear blind that his position hasn't changed. And of course his listeners believe everything he tells them.

Rush: "There was no Operation Chaos. Airstrip One has always been at war with Eurasia. They're not the droids you're looking for."

Listeners: "Megadittos!"

[JoePhilly]

18. I think her running is a mixed bag actually .... on the one hand ...

If she were to run seriously, it would be great fun watching the other GOP candidates trying to take her out while NOT alienating the crack pots that follow her. Talk about gymnastics.

On the other hand, I doubt she would run seriously. That is, she would run, make some up front noise, but behind the scenes be working on a the path that nets her the most cash, period. So, I suspect that rather quickly, 3-5 states, she drops and throws her support behind one of the others, probably the Fox News favorite. Doing so potentially speeds up the GOP primary process, minimizing the overall infighting and associated collateral damage. She gets rich, and some one like Romney gets a paved road to the general.

As for the cross over ... even if it happened, it would be a distraction and not much else. I won;t be surprised if Rush claims that is happening, even when it is not.

[bluestateguy]

2. It's risky

One the one hand, everything could play out according to the script, and Obama wins a 49 state landslide and Democrats win back the House. That would be a lot of fun.

But this is the Democratic Party we are talking about here. Don't overlook their ability to royally screw things up in spite of the best opportunities being handed to them on a platter.

Any risk of a Palin presidency, no matter how small, is not worth taking.

[Ian David]

4. I think it was Hal Sparks who said, "I don't want to put that bullet in the chamber." n/t

[uppityperson]

5. I did this in 2000, thought McCain had to great a chance and what idiot would vote for shrub

I won't do it again.

[RichGirl]

6. Very, very BAD idea.

Sad to say, I don't trust the american people. Too many are just plain crazy. And they are breeding.

I will not risk having Palin as president. Compared to her...Rownmey, Huckabee...any of the old white guys would be wonderful.

But, I am 100% certain that Obama will get a second term. Because thanks to the crazy teabaggers the GOP vote will be split. Or a third party.

That might be something we COULD do...is support a third party candidate for them.

[Kurovski]

10. Plus the fact that elections run on electronic equipment can be stolen.

No one will raise a peep, and the press will go into sleep mode.

Don't let her anywhere near it. Plus her violent followers in militias, the Dominionists and Christian Identity Movement, and other non-affiliated racists would most likely be driven still crazier and more violent if she lost.

remember what teabagger sharron angle said about 2nd Amendment remedies.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

7. I would rather see the media IGNORE her for 2 years.

What do ya think?

No mention of her in the media, by commentators, on the net.
Make her a non-person. No one hears or says anything about Sarah.

I think I saw someone else already mention this somewhere here...

[karynnj]

8. No - we will be accused of it anyway - but it was wrong when they did it

and it would be wrong if we did it.

Not to mention - though I would give it little chance of working - would you want to live with the quilt of having helped her win if she did. (I remember feeling guilty that I was relieved that McCain lost to Bush's outrageous lies - because who would vote for Bush?)

[Very_Boring_Name]

9. Bad idea, it helped unite the democratic party in 2008, it would help unite the repubs in 2012

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Once upon a time in Arizona there was this crazy GOP candidate for governor

Some Dems in Arizona thought it would be a great idea to raise money to help him win the primary because there was no way someone as crazy as he could win the general election. That crazy guy was named Evan Meachem and not only did he get elected, but he put Arizona on the map in the late 80s for refusing to recognize the MLK holiday. Later he was removed from office for his role in a financial scandal.

Moral of the story? Don't help the crazy Republican for any reason.

[SteveG]

12. If we were republicant's it would

work, because they are an organized political party. As Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat" The sad fact is he was right then, he would be right today.

[Bryan]

13. No: it's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's dangerous

Even if it worked as planned, it could result in unintended consequences.

At this vantage, it's easy enough to say that a Palin nomination would divide the party, but is it worth the risk to find out? Do we really want to gamble on Republicans suddenly developing a sense of shame? Really?

[jillan]

15. Two Words: Citizens United.

[RoadRage]

16. What is that?

Seriously... I don't know.

[OhioBlue]

17. The Supreme Court decision that open the flood gates

of corporate and special interest money into campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

They funneled millions of dollars through the Chamber of Commerce and other groups to run ads against Dems in 2010. The right will be even more organized for 2012 and the weight of the advertising campaigns against Dems - especially populist or liberal dems will be enormous. Plus, they could fund astroturf campaigning.

We don't want to risk Palin as a candidate with this decision over our heads. She's an idiot for sure.. but he money on the right could absolutely dwarf any messaging or campaigning from the left. They may buy the Presidency and we cannot endorse risking a total idiot as the POTUS by gambling that she is the easiest to defeat.

[RoadRage]

19. Very Good Points...

So who would be the "ideal" candidate to have run on the right? Someone who isn't bat shit crazy.. but isn't exactly electable either... Romney I guess? He may flip-flop his way into the middle anyway... so we just sit back and hope that happens?