To HappySqurriel's point.

This happened while Obama was runming for office, and almost no one knows about it. If this thing happened to Palin, it would be what defined her. Everyone in this thread, and the US, would have seen in 20-30 times.

@HappySqurriel: But did you see her resignation speech? That wasn't manipulated by the media... just her uncensored words. It was a big contradictory mess where she rambled on without saying much at all (and the points she did make were weird at best... lame duck politicians shouldn't run until the end of their terms?).

I'd really like to see some evidence that Palin might be an intelligent person... but that evidence doesn't exist as far as I've seen.

Let me say this I think a two party system is great. Not only does it modify extreme positions, and provide balance. It also has the benefit of being extremely stable. So much so that it has persisted through much of the history of the United States. However the problem for the Republicans party is that they haven't behaved in accord with that principle. For a party to thrive it must be flexible, original, inventive, and willing to change. Specifically in answer to the change in cultural leanings.

The Republican party, basically conservatives which now entirely dominate the party. Instead of learning from last years election have taken the reverse tact. Instead of abandoning extremist views and trying to work their way back towards the center. Have instead chose to go farther to the right. Which is about as asinine as you can get. Doing more of what does not work is never a solution. It is the path to destruction, but the Republican party became so extreme over the last decade that they really are oblivious to reality.

This party needs to be appealing to more diverse demographics. That means they cannot just be a party for White Christian Fundamentalists. The Democrats varied coalition demographic was able to crush that demographic in the last election, and their candidate was their very definition of the Antichrist. Think about that if the Republican demographic cannot even muster the will to vote down Satan himself. What hopes does Conservatism have in the long run. The answer is none whatsoever.

The nations demographics and political positions are changing, and they are going to continue to play to the favor of democrats. A smaller percentage of voters are Theocratic every single year. The younger voter is more open minded, more tolerant, and far more pragmatic. In other words they are the exact opposite of what the Republican mindset has become.

Do not get me wrong this isn't about attacking the Republican party. As a voter I want to have good options, and good positions to vote upon. I dislike the fact that one party has become so extremist in its philosophy that I cannot vote for them. I would be glad to consider their policies on economics, or even national defense. The problem is that I am an Atheist, and as we saw in the election the Republican party basically views me as evil. They had no problems making that insinuation during last years campaigns. That would be like a Jew voting for Hitler.

No I do not think all Republicans are like that. In fact I try real hard to discern which Republicans are fair minded, and have my best interests at heart. Sadly I just see the party going so far to the right it just gets more depressing each day, because I am losing choices. Ironically when you hear or read someone screaming that Obama is an extreme leftist it isn't that he is that far to the left. No its that they have gone so far to the right they have lost all perspective.

To be on point when anyone says Palin energized the base I think to myself this may be true, but the base is not what it used to be. It is shrinking every day, and it no longer has the power to counteract the Democratic base. The Republicans cannot possibly do worse then Palin. They need a candidate that can appeal outside of the party. Specifically to Independents and to swing Democrats.

Laugh if you want, but the Republicans need the modern equivalent of a Ross Perot. A candidate who is not a religious ideologue. Instead someone who is financially savvy, and has the pedigree to prove that they can fine tune the federal government into a well oiled machine. That is something that appeals to most Americans. That is someone most Americans could get behind well as long as he or she is level headed, and not erratic.

Also do not bet on dethroning Obama in 2012. He is popular with most Americans, because he is trying to get things accomplished. It is hard to find fault with someone that has the guts to walk right into a political meat grinder. Americans have been sick with politicians that did nothing for years. Now they have a politician that is extremely motivated, and able to multitask. Basically it is a case of at least he is trying. I just do not see the Republicans especially now bringing forth a candidate that is this energetic.

You clearly don't listen to them. They have never said that Obama was trying to ruin the country.

I agree with this. I mean, Harry Truman was a nobody who lucked into the spot by becoming FDR's vice president when he was old and weak, but then thrived in the position. He would never have been seen as qualified, but he certainly was.

Harry Truman was not one of our better presidents. His weakness in foreign affairs cost the people or America and of the free world greatly. The United States squandered a nuclear monopoly, and we are still paying for that incompetence today. Would there be a North Korea today, or would there have been a Korean or Vietnam war had he forced the Soviet hand.

The man laid the ground work for the Cold War. Which is part of why we have rogue states today, and the weapons generated in that war have lead to dozens of bloody coups. No he wasn't a good president he was naive. He bought what Stalin peddled, and we are paying for it to this very day.

RUSH Limbaugh is going to cry.

You really think we have a two party system? Watching Democrats and Republicans fight about politics is like watching Catholics and Lutherans fight over religion.

Both parties have vastly more in common then they have in differences. Both have expanded Government beyond the point we can afford it. Both have sent people to Iraq, and Afghanistan, and against the people’s wishes, expanded fighting in those areas. Obama promised transparency in Washington, but has not delivered.

The new guy looks exactly like the old guy.

To use their tag lines, you voted for change, but got more of the same. Massive government and a President that wishes he was a Dictator.

How exactly do you force the Soviets' hand circa late 1940s, without a war? A more aggressive stance by Truman had two likely results: A nuclear slaughter of Russians, or Soviet domination of Europe.

Wow, we're getting far afield.

@Desroko

Do not confuse the Soviet Union just after World War 2 with the Soviet Union of five or six years later. The United States enjoyed a four year long nuclear monopoly. Had superior air capability, had a vastly superior navy, and enjoyed a better intelligence apparatus. Simply put the Soviet Union no matter its devaluation of human life could have put up a significant military front.

They had no hand to play. Then needed four years to even address the first problem on my list. They knew they couldn't have won a war against the Western allies. To think that it would have come to violence is naive. Instead they would have had to withdrawal. At least until they had their own nuclear deterrent. A lack of quick action allowed the Soviet Union to catch up, and lost the west a couple dozen nations to communism.

This was not unseen. His military staff told him what was happening. Churchill himself told Truman what was coming. The list goes on and on. He just decided to be soft, because it was inconvenient. He had piss poor situational awareness, and millions of people had to die to prove that.