don your al-u-minium chapeau. a question about republican strategies

[RainDog]

since the republicans have a track record of choosing a Howdy Doody prez candidate with man behind the curtain v.p.(Bush/Cheney, Reagan, Bush Sr.) and then the opposite speculation that Quayle was assassination insurance for Bush Sr....

(as I said from the start, this is a speculative tin-foilish post)

what if McCain, as old as he is, has been anointed as the republican prez candidate with the plan to have a talibornagain v.p. (who couldn't get in on his own w/o a nominally sane candidate to bring him along) - or, less machiavellian, since McCain was the more moderate choice... what if the buggery brigade on the religious right gets one of their crazies to "balance" the ticket and keep the talibornagains happy... and what if the idea is that McCain could "by natural causes" croak in office and then we'd have a nutjob theocrat to use Bush Jr.'s unprecedented powers to ignore the constitution, blahblahblah.

From a practical point of view, if such a person were chosen as v.p., shouldn't the democrats hit this person hard on the idea that, like Huckabee (who could very well be the vp choice) stated it was better to change the constitution than go against his idea of God? Kennedy had to go through trial by fire to prove he wasn't going to be a shill for the Pope, and he'd never stated anything of the sort. So if any talibornagain gets on the republican ticket, why shouldn't their loyalties to separation of church and state be a grilling point?

The guy from Harpers that wrote God Plus One would be a great person to take on that job. He's been in the belly of the beast where pols talk about using "Hitler or Stalin-like tactics." (which is simply a more accessible way of talking about Leo Strauss's idea of lying to people to make them scared and servile, even if you don't believe those things yourself.)

anyone else thought about this at all?