Um... what?
Today, a conservative acquaintance on Facebook linked to a New York times article that speculates that Rmoney is planning on having a female running mate. His sour opinion:
That clinches it. He won't win. Nobody who's used this strategy has ever come close to winning... That is not being sexist..it is being historically accurate. For some reason, and I do not claim to understand, putting a woman on the presidential ticket puts it into the can.
While I hope he's right (in this case), his response was in fact sexist, regardless of its historical accuracy. But that wasn't the kicker. The kicker was one of his buddies' responses:
I've suspected all along the Republicans are trying to throw the Presidency so they can keep control of Congress...There were a few much better choices who would have been a match, but Romney is a sacrificial lamb like Palin was.
Palin was a sacrificial lamb?
Rmoney is a sacrificial lamb?
Did I wake up on the other side of the looking-glass today?
If anything, in the previous election, McCAIN was the "sacrificial lamb." He got to look old and grandfatherly and befuddled while Palin was the screeching siren exciting the right-wing base.
I'd really like some help understanding this particular leap of logic. Help me out? This is one thing my brain is refusing to brain about; it's like trying to learn Esperanto by studying ancient Aztec artifacts.
(Not to mention the idea that the TGOP is trying to throw the election. I seriously doubt that! What would be the point?)
Nothing beyond the fleur-de-Kos. I think I just need some migraine medicine.