The House passes the Senate's healthcare reform bill 219-212.
Click to Print
Include Comments
McCain’s mistakes
Newsweek’s Julian Zelizer reviews a list of badly run campaigns, and then goes over John McCain’s campaign. Here’s a digested version:
ran a campaign that ranks on the bottom of this list. This was an aimless and chaotic operation made worse by poor choices at key moments. Their first mistake was picking .
The second mistake was going dark. McCain missed the biggest lesson of the Reagan Revolution: conservatives usually do best when they appeal to America’s optimism and develop a positive campaign around a vision for the country.
The third mistake was the “no-state” strategy. In contrast to Obama’s “50-state” strategy whereby Democrats hoped to win support in red states, the Republican ticket moved from one state to the next without any clear rationale.
The fourth mistake was the way McCain handled the crisis on Wall Street. McCain’s decision to temporarily stop the campaign and possibly call off the debate at the start of the Wall Street crisis in September looked terrible.
McCain’s final mistake was to leave his most politically powerful argument until it was too late. While there were many problems with Joe the Plumber, the argument could have been used much more effectively against Senator Obama: that the Democratic ticket was too left of center, especially on the issue of taxes.
Zelizer may be a little over-zealous, since organizations like Gallup attribute McCain’s loss in large part to the economic crisis. But what do you think?
back to top130 Comments to “McCain’s mistakes”
McCain’s biggest mistake was when he blatantly distorted Mitt Romney’s comments about a timeline in that debate just before the Florida primary. That was McCains lowest point and it was unworthy of him.
Report comment to moderator
But what do you think?
I think he lost for the same reason Bob Dole did. He’s a RINO, whose philosophy differs from the Left’s only by degree. When Obama said, “I want to raise taxes on the rich and give everything away to everyone else,” McCain was left with, “Well, I want to give everything away, too, but I’m going to give less and do it without raising taxes.”
Despite the currently prevailing wisdom, Republicans always do best when they’re most conservative. Only then do they offer a real alternative. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of buying the electorate, and the Democrats always have sweeter candy. RINOs like McCain and Dole always lose because they point to the opponent and say, “I want to give you the same stuff he does, only a little less of it.”
The first Republican to stand up and say, “Balance the budget, cut government waste; Washington isn’t your daddy but you can be free” will be the new leader. And, IMHO, you Jindahl hopers are barking up the wrong tree.
Report comment to moderator
McCain is an honorable man who has served and suffered much for his country, far more than all of the other candidates combined in my view. All of McCain’s mistakes were honorable except the one I mentioned above at #1.
Beyond that, some of the notions perpetrated by Newsweek are silly. McCain was not “dark” at all. The deceiving media often look at ‘up’ and call it ‘down.’ And millions of Americans mindlessly and uncritically become hypnotized by media opinion.
Report comment to moderator
The Wall Street bailout was big. If McCain had come out against it, it would have at least sent a signal among fiscal conservatives that he was different than Obama on this issue. But Stubob called it right; it simply sent the message that he was RINO when it comes to government intervention and economic issues.
…it’s just a matter of buying the electorate, and the Democrats always have sweeter candy. That’s classic!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with StuBob, but will add that I think the most fiscally conservative candidate is our best bet. So many republicans hang their conservatism solely on social issues.
And yes, “Balance the budget, cut government waste; Washington isn’t your daddy but you can be free” is the key.
Report comment to moderator
The main reason McCain lost was that he (and especially Sarah Palin) were the object of the most monolithic, sustained, and vile media assault in all history. Any pretense to journalism and/or ‘objectivity’ died this year, once and for all. The degree of slander and lies and bias against these individuals is truly beyond any historical comparison – it dwarfs in scale and intent even the almost hilarious excesses of the Sovietized media in Poland during the Polish revolution in the 1980’s.
It is absolutely astonishing that even with this all-out and utterly shameless media assault against truth, McCain/Palin still polled about half the votes cast (probably 10% of Democrat votes are fraudulent as well, so McCain/Palin’s take were probably much higher than half, if voting was actually not rigged).
This is in fact the only bit of good news – that half of the American people still have brains and can think for themselves. The other half are morons or slaves. But we still have almost half of the population who said no to the orchestrated lie/smear campaign and voted for McCain/Palin. That fact is heartening as it says that America is not completely dead.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed StuBob, McCain should never have been the candidate because he was too much like a Democrat. I don’t think he ever really had the base because there just weren’t enough of them, who apparently have long memories, willing to hold their nose again for a RINO.
As I only have time for snippets, it seems that one good thing that happened was that McCain wasn’t the only RINO that was sent to the sidelines last night. Conservatives now have another opportunity to do what they did in ‘94 and the less BO controls, or the more he goes along with, his loopy fringe, the easier that job will be.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob et al,
Victory has a 1,000 fathers but defeat is an orphan.
Not willing to call Mac a RINO but his eagerness to be a maverick (instead of a statesman leader a la RWR) coupled with his overly enthusiastic willingness to cross the aisle and sign onto Dem bills certainly hurt him.
From here on out the loser from earlier election or nomination process should not be able to say “It’s my turn now”.
Reagan had no one in the MSM giving him the same type of free publicity BHO received. But Reagan unlike McCain knew how to bypass the media and connect with avg Joes.
Future nominees will have to be smoothe telegenic salesmen/women for conservatism. And you cannot really sell anything if you dont believe in it yourself.
Report comment to moderator
I would agree with everything except for the Palin choice. I agree with Drill that they were the victim of a most disgusting vicious attack by the drive-by press. It’s absolutely shameful that they couldn’t put their bias aside and judge the woman on her merits.
I will hate the MSM even more for this. I don’t trust these people as far as I could collectively throw ‘em.
You watch, the media assassins will turn on Obama when he fails to deliver – and he will. There’s no way anyone could keep all those promises to the extremist base, and keep this country on a somewhat even keel. They’ve already started the CYA process. They’re a vicious shallow dishonest partisan lot, are most journalists. Keep your wallets, women and children away from this scum…
Report comment to moderator
You know I keep reading these posts and am struck by how much Republicans are sounding like Alabama fans. “Back when The Bear/Ronald Reagan was the Coach/President…” I have almost been stoned in my home state for reminding people that Bear Bryant is dead and we can only rest on his laurels so long. I am now reminding Repblicans that Ronald Reagan is gone and we can no longer rest on his laurels either. He was a man just like any other and he was a product of his time. I doubt any football coach could walk on a field and get away with the same stuff Bear Bryant did and I doubt we will ever have a President like Ronald Reagan again. For all the Rebublican and Alabama fans out there it is time to start looking to the future not to the past. There is another president out there waiting to be found that we will all like as much as we did Reagan.
Report comment to moderator
I made the first 4 of those points on here several times over the last few weeks. I would add a 6th mistake:
He essentially stopped campaigning after he locked up the nomination. While the Democrats were still dukeing it out in the Primaries he should have laid out his plan for what he was going to do for the country, and campaigned hard on it through the spring and the summer. Basically he didn’t get serious until the Republican convention. Contrast that with Obama, who never let up. Even after he won the Democratic nomination, he continued plodding along and campaigning all summer. He was definitely the “tortoise” to John McCain’s “hare”.
In my opinion, John McCain’s two worst mistakes were:
1. Running a negative campaign. He failed to understand that the American people were looking for a man who brought a more positive, hopeful vision for our country (see Ronald Reagan). They’re tired of the “Karl Rove” brand of politics.
2. His selection of Sarah Palin. It was done to shore up the conservative base, but it was disastrous for the mainstream of America. I think we will find out in days to come that the choice was forced on him by the conservative wing of the party. It was certainly not his preference. If he had been allowed to select Lieberman or a woman like Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey-Hutcheson, he likely would have won.
Report comment to moderator
For what its worth, there were three mistakes and all could be tied to the economy which was the primary driver of this election:
1. McCain should have stumped with an energy independence message that specifically talked about bringing home the $700 billion per year spent overseas for our energy needs. Go to small town and big town USA and say ‘jobs will be created in this community when the money spent here…’
2. McCain should have talked about the $2 trillion dollars in bailouts which can be directly linked to the GSEs forcing lenders to make bad mortgages. Mr. Maverick should have stayed on the campaign and laid out the case for his reforms that were blocked by Fannie and Freddie benefactors in Congress. Vote against the bailout and hammer the people in Congress who squandered $2 trillion of tax payer monies and let them know you are going to fully investigate the Congressional graft.
3. Joe the Plumber was too little too late.
Report comment to moderator
True McCain was a bland candidate and at 72 was a stark contrast to the youthful Obama.
But if McCain made mistakes did Hillary Clinton also make mistakes in the primary?
Really, there is nothing either one of them could have done.
* Obama’s support among blacks was unshakeable.
* This was the easy way for white people to feel magnanimous. How can they prove to themselves they are not “racist”? Simple, vote for a black man for President.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #6
The other half are morons or slaves.
See, when you denigrate more than half of your fellow citizens like that, you do two things:
1. You tear at the bonds of our democracy. It serves no purpose other than to further the division and encourages people to fight rather than find ways to cooperate. It’s very selfish, because it puts your party above the good of the nation as a whole.
2. It’s a sure-fire recipe for assuring that your party will continue as the minority party. Take a lesson from someone who spent 8 long years in the political minority: you don’t win by tearing people down. You win by reaching out and finding common ground with people who will not agree with you on everything.
The anger, frustration, and fury should be directed at your own Party leadership, which led you into the political wilderness.
Report comment to moderator
The media ’savaged’ Senator McCain and Gov. Palin –
McCains background far out distances Obama’s. Palin brought so much to the Repubican ticket – brilliant ideas, instituted in Alaska to solve their problems – her ability to stand against all the ‘old timers’ who weren’t able to grasp her strength, not to mention her style, glasses and all – men and women alike (MSM) couldn’t stand it, she was too smart, a Gov., and beautiful to top off the list, it drove them mad, especially the female journalists – they did the wildest rat dance of all time, making every single nasty remark they could get away with. Through it all, Gov. Palin stood tall and kept her direct approach, – McCain and Palin lost the campaign, but they WON the standard for respectability, which can’t be said for……..
Obama threw in a freebee for all those who stand around waiting for their free lunch, dinner, housing, college, YOU NAME IT – which was ‘grabbing money from the rich’ and handing it over to those who have always had their hand out. The ‘Robin Hood’ approach appeals to this crew, and a BIG crew it is.
Below you will find just who pays taxes and who doesn’t – as it stands this year 2008 – 50 percent of taxpayers will only be paying 2.9 percent of tax in the USA – And now that isn’t enough, those who ditch their responsibilities, refuse to financially take care of their families and children want more, MUCH MORE.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree that the negative campaigning didn’t win McCain any friends. He definitely should have given his constituents hope just as Obama did, and Clinton and Reagan have done in the past.
This should be a lesson to all politicians, but they never seem to learn…
Report comment to moderator
You wanna know who I think will face the biggest “change” in this campaign? (I was going to say they were the biggest losers.)
The media.
I bet they face an even bigger change than they have already faced. And I hope that some of it forces them to be more objective and honest than they have heretofore been.
If not, I hope they are the ones who “fade away”.
Report comment to moderator
MIM – 16
What kind of hope are you referring to? The kind Obama threw out was the Robin Hood game.
Report comment to moderator
He campaigned as an American hero, and not as an American Idol.
Tres passé.
Report comment to moderator
SG – 19
McCain doesn’t consider himself an “idol” nor did he ever appear to want that title – on the other hand others played that game, but did they really win? I don’t think so.
Tres passé? – no not at all, he had a plan, it wasn’t to play games with earned money from those who pay the wages of citizens of this country.
Report comment to moderator
Um. I know that, Victoria. Apparently, you and my facetiousness don’t get along very well. Never really have.
Report comment to moderator
#14
Written by the same man who uses a broad brush to condemn all Christians??????
Report comment to moderator
SG
So that’s what you call it “facetiousness” – that’s your excuse
Report comment to moderator
McCain is an honorable man with a largely honorable record. At a time when the conventional wisdom held that the Iraq War was lost and most people viewed the Surge as foolishness, he supported the war and was willing to lose the presidential primary on the issue, if necessary. In my view he would have been a good reforming president whom are foreign enemies would have feared. Too bad the Republican base was luke warm about him. They will soon get a hard dose of liberal medicine including at least two liberal Supreme Court apointees.
Obama is an inexperienced politician with no significant record of accomplishment. He stealthily has hid his hard-left views and is not really respected by our enemies. He has never made anything close to a courageous and wise decision.
Of course in a democracy the people get the leadership they deserve. They have chosen Obama and shall have to live with the consequences. In a time of severe economic crisis and international instability we have managed to elect a colossal empty suit.
As to this parlous Newsweek editor, Zelzer, McCain is rather well aware of the spineless rear echelon fools [mfs] in combat who arrive just in time to bayonet the wounded.
Report comment to moderator
Let me explain my ‘morons and slaves’ comment. To begin with, there are plenty of functional morons who voted for Obama. I would lump into the moron category any human being who voted for Obama because he was black (or half-black – or green, or blue). That person is a functional moron – they are also a bigot and a racist and functionally unworthy of American citizenship. I see from the news and reports that there are many morons of this type – morons who voted for Obama solely because of the pigmentation in his skin.
Note that there are probably morons on the other side who voted for McCain SOLELY because he was white and Obama black. Very few, though, comparatively speaking, I suspect.
Anyone else who voted for Obama is indeed a ’slave’. They are the witting (or the unwitting) slave of the most monolithic and false propaganda/political machine that ever existed on the planet Earth. As a ‘for instance’ – they obediantly vote for a man who has enabled and celebrated the procedure fondly known as ‘partial birth abortion’, in which a full term healthy child is delivered, then stabbed in the brain, and then sawn up and discarded.
The most CHARITABLE spin on that is that an individual who supports such a candidate is a slave – who brain/soul is owned, operated, and chatteled to the System, which is evil and decadent and corrupt through and through.
So there is NO hyperbole in the phrase ‘moron and slave’; none at all.
And, no, I won’t work on ’side issues’ with someone who believes it is great to kill children.
Heck. I could not even trust someone like that to go get me a soda and not put poison in it. How could I trust them on ANYTHING?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – I’m quoting you and wondering how you can say these things today, after the slanders you made about Christians on Monday?
Here’s what you said on Monday: “The scariest thing for many of us is that if Obama wins, the conservative Christians, who have become quite radicalized, will resort to violence. We’ll have our own Christian Taliban in America.”
And here’s what you’re saying today:
“You tear at the bonds of our democracy. It serves no purpose other than to further the division and encourages people to fight rather than find ways to cooperate. It’s very selfish, because it puts your party above the good of the nation as a whole.
“ It’s a sure-fire recipe for assuring that your party will continue as the minority party. Take a lesson from someone who spent 8 long years in the political minority: you don’t win by tearing people down. You win by reaching out and finding common ground with people who will not agree with you on everything.”
Report comment to moderator
I live in AZ and McCain has been my Representative and Senator for a long time. I have maintained since the start of this blog that McCain is a RINO. RINOs are not winners.
The Republicans lost because they became Washington insiders and lost touch with the base. The moderates have largely been purged or will be purged from the party. We need to reconnect with traditional Republican values of lower taxes, smaller government and caring for people. The party became enamored with themselves and sold us down the river.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. Drill’s comment does cause me to ask if abortion for many of you WMB’ers has become the sacred cow? If a candidate is “right” on abortion and “wrong” on everything else would WMB’s still support that candidate?
Report comment to moderator
Klasko, you’re right in calling attention to Anlir’s hypocrisy. One might, also, note his juvenility in a comment to Outkast last night after learning of Obama’s victory. as follows:
HEY OUTKAST:
NA-NA-NA-NA, NA-NA-NA-NA, NA-NA-NA-NA, GOODBYE . . .
That he is now righteously lecturing us on “cooperation” is rich. This is the fellow who gives annual awards to WorldMag bloggers who meet his standards of probity.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #26
Indeed, conservative Christians have become radicalized. The “letter from the future” by Dr. Dobson, a major leader of conservative Christianity, that was sent out to millions of his followers, along with the increasingly militaristic imagery and violent language all point to a movement that has gone off the rails. The airwaves and internet have been filled with claims that the judgment of God will fall on America if Obama is elected and how Christians must do everything in their power to prevent that (It won’t and they didn’t).
Words do have consequences and spur people to action. And when a movement pushes and pushes the boundaries as the conservative Christian movement have done, eventually people feel they have no option but to take action. It’s my opinion that the conservative Christian movement is teetering right on the edge of that. Thus our concern about a Christian “Taliban”.
It would behoove the leaders of conservative Christianity to remind it’s followers that they live in a pluralistic democracy and must learn to live within a country that is likely not going to agree with them on many things. They need to do some serious work on reducing the level of anger of their followers and reduce the usage of strident language and imagery. I should note that there are a few leaders like Rick Warren who are attempting to do that.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #30
I was parroting back Outkast’s words from Oct. 2nd, when he claimed that McCain/Palin were going to win:
Na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, goodbye . . .
- Outkast ”And the winner is…” 10/2/08/#28
Report comment to moderator
If a candidate is “right” on abortion and “wrong” on everything else would WMB’s still support that candidate?
For me, a candidate’s view on abortion informs his view on many other issues, especially in the social realm.
Whether I would vote for that candidate would depend on other factors: who else is running? How tight is the race?
John McCain was far from my dream candidate. I found him to be solid on pro-life issues while I was displeased with him in many other areas. I thought the race too close to vote for a third-party candidate, so I voted for the candidate I thought would do less harm to America.
Report comment to moderator
The more I think about it, I don’t believe McCain could have won. As for Zelizer’s comments, well Palin is the only reason McCain polled in the upper 40’s. She energized the base and it was the Economy that sunk the ship. That it was close says something about the campaign. The Repubs are still suffering a hangover from 2006 where conservatives went to the polls to oust the Repubs who had lost touch.
If I were like the Democrat whiners in 2000 and 2004 I would now be dreaming up some theory that the Wall Street Crowd (Major Dem contributors) purposely caused the stock market crash. But I am happy to call Obama my president and won’t be putting those silly bumper stickers on my car that disrespect the man and our great country.
Report comment to moderator
CB – 29
Unborn infants “sacred cow” ? – FOURTY EGIHT MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED NINETY THREE little souls and lives, lost to the knife of abortion in the United States of America
YOU call this “the sacred cow” ? If life has become so UN-SACRED that you can make these remarks, what then can you say of yourself? Is there any person who has been adopted that would wish they had been ripped from their mothers womb, and thrown to the dumpster? I haven’t met any yet, have YOU?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Anlir. Your analysis of what Christians need or need not to do in politics carries no weight. You don’t get to play grown-up wanting to be taken sincerely one moment and tantrum childishly the next. And you don’t get taken seriously largely because of juvenile generalizations about “CCRs” and “extremist conservative Christians,” a group you clumsily, angrily and regularly lash out at seemingly unable to distinguish them (whoever “them” is) from those in your audience here (nice tactic, there!). And certainly not with your inexcusably sloppy use of terms like “Christian Taliban.”
Is it attention seeking behavior, ignorance about the people you’re addressing or just garden variety moral equivalence that drives this kind of flabbergastingly histrionic commentary? You should probably sort it out before continuing with the approach that’s sapping what you’re trying to say here of any consequence beyond the kiddie table.
Report comment to moderator
McCain was in a tough spot. His choice of Sarah Palin, immediately brought him credibility with the most extreme elements in the party, but ultimately alienated moderate conservatives. Hopefully the Republicans will get the message that most Americans are not extreme right wingers, and will move toward a more centrist platform.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
That makes your answer very clear. Pro-life IS the rock upon which you stand. It is your salvation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Report comment to moderator
CB – 38
Anyone who would make a stand FOR ABORTION, not to mention ‘partial birth abortion’ do not receive my respect. If one can’t respect the SACREDNESS of life in the womb, there isn’t much there, its an empty suit, without a moral compass – there would be NO TRUST -
Report comment to moderator
CB – 38
YOU WRITE:
“That makes your answer very clear. Pro-life IS the rock upon which you stand. It is your salvation.”
The LORD is my ROCK and Salvation, don’t try and flip words around to mean something they don’t, you KNOW BETTER!
Report comment to moderator
Now, girls.
Report comment to moderator
The first Republican to stand up and say, “Balance the budget, cut government waste; Washington isn’t your daddy but you can be free” will be the new leader.
It worked for Bill Clinton.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.
This would be true even if there was a flat 1% tax across all incomes!! It is kinda amazing how you can only get money out of people that have it! Now on the flip side who benefits more from a stable society of police, roads, firemen, and good economy? The people in the top 10% who make $100K or the 90% of people below them? Who has more to lose if the bottom 50% of the population of the US rioted and decided to no longer “play”? 1/2 of the country makes under 30k a year. Are you really angry about these “lazy” people for only paying 2.9% of the income tax burden? (hint: they only make 10% of the total taxable income)
Report comment to moderator
McCain’s real mistake is looking like he got a paraffin treatment for his entire head.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t appreciate voting for him after reading his first wife’s account of their marriage and divorce.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #36
I have no illusions that conservative Christian Republicans on Worldmag will take heed of anything I have to say. The audience is much wider than that.
I suspect in a few weeks or months we shall for the most part be over the “heat” of the election and will move on to other things like finding the best way forward for this country.
Of course, it remains to be seen if the conservative Christian movement will tone down their actions and rhetoric and do what’s right for the good of the country or if they will try to obstruct progress over the next 4 years. If folks like James Dobson and John Hagie prevail, it’s gonna be a long miserable four years. If folks like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes prevail, their might be some hope for the movement.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of Palin talking about the base: Christian fundamentalists, isn’t it apropos that Al-Qaeda translates as “The Base?”
Don’t criticize the president elect, or you’ll be giving comfort to the enemy.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t fault McCain for picking Palin and I don’t blame her for the loss.
Who should he have picked for his VP? Another conservative, white male?
He already had the conservative, white, male vote.
Report comment to moderator
McCain bungled the race in the early summer. Obama was severely wounded in June. First by Hilary Clinton, with her multiple big wins late in the Dem primary. Then by the Rev. Wright mess. When Obama mathematically clinched the Dem nomination, millions of Clinton supporters were genuinely distraught. McCain missed a golden opportunity to woo these supporters to his side.
Instead, he frittered away for two months and the Clinton base slowly drifted over to Obama. The drift turned into a full-scale tidal wave towards Obama when McCain selected Palin as his running mate. Strike two.
The financial crisis was strike three. First, that it occurred period. Second, that McCain appeared completely ineffective and bumbling in his response.
I caucused for Hillary. I can honestly say that I was fully ready to vote McCain in early June. But he left me hanging.
And then, I found Cynthia McKinney.
Report comment to moderator
Obama had to deal with far mor negative attacks on him during the Dem primaries than he ever got from McCain or Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
Republicans and McCain’s campaign leaders were terrified of whatever stigma the deceiving media would brand them with if they got out of line in any way. The deceiving media allowed Hillary and other Dems to attack Obama a lot more during the primaries than they allowed McCain to do so during the regular election.
BTW, by “allowed” I mean thaqt the deceiving media did not attack Hillary for attacking Obama near as much as they attacked McCain for any criticism. The deceiving media slavishly ran interference for Obama and covered up for him at every step.
Report comment to moderator
Newsweek is reporting:
The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. “Why would they try to make people hate us?” Michelle asked a top campaign aide.
Report comment to moderator
“If a candidate is ‘right’ on abortion and ‘wrong’ on everything else would WMB’s still support that candidate?”
Let me ask it this way: “If a candidate is ‘right’ on slavery and ‘wrong’ on everything else would WMB’s still support that candidate?”
I can’t speak for others. But I know that slavery is one of the worst evils in our history. Abortion and infanticide are even less ethical and more egregious than slavery, by far. At least with slavery, the victims are not literally slaughtered outright.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: Let me explain my ‘morons and slaves’ comment. To begin with, there are plenty of functional morons who voted for Obama. I would lump into the moron category any human being who voted for Obama because he was black.
And what do you call someone who votes for a candidate because they believe in the same imaginary being? Or, better yet, because their vice-presidential candidate does…
McCain blew whatever chance he had to win by appearing a)out of touch, b)impetuous and c)a Drama Queen during the economic crisis.
Inserting himself into that crisis so dramatically was a singularly stupid thing to do. And when his hero act came up empty, his claim to superior leadership skills vanished.
Report comment to moderator
McCain’s biggest mistake was acting like a Democrat for six years, then running as a Republican. Any wonder why many like me voted for a true Conservative like Bob Barr?
Report comment to moderator
At one time I was favorably disposed toward McCain because of his “maverick” status. If the Democrats had chosen another John Kerry-like candidate I would have seriously considered voting for McCain. But then the Bush/Rove handlers got ahold of him and it was all over.
Report comment to moderator
Going into this campaign, the Denmocratic party held all the high ground.
Given the natural advantages of the Cemocratic party, that McCain was able to run a competitive campaign is a testament to the tactical strength of his effort.
I personally disagree with many of the McCain campaign tactics, but it can not be denied that under nearly impossible conditions McCain almost succeeded.
I suspect that the Republicans will now martyr McCain. In doing so, however, I suggest that they do a major disservice to a man who has given much to this country and served her well.
Report comment to moderator
I found Ivan The Terrible’s post 27 interesting.
I sense that perhaps the conservatives have not learned the lesson of the 2008 election: the U.S. does not seem to be as conservatvie as they seem to suggest.
But I urge you on: become more conservative, start the circular firing squad, Monday morning quarterback the election.
And when you are done you will be a permanent minority party.
Keep it up!
Report comment to moderator
Oh we can only hope that the Republicans have a gigantic “purge” that Ivan is hoping for and boot out all but a tiny little faction. That way they will never gain power again. Commence firing…
Report comment to moderator
“I sense that perhaps the conservatives have not learned the lesson of the 2008 election: the U.S. does not seem to be as conservatvie as they seem to suggest.”
Really? I find it amusing that you suggest this, after all your blather about “building consensus”…. I’m going to suggest that perhaps you think that America is more left of center than you realize, and that you and the rest of the liberals, including Obama, will quickly come to terms with that fact.
I genuinely feel sorry for Obama, because he’s stuck his foot in it this time. Of course anyone who wants to be president must be a bit of a masochist anyway….
Report comment to moderator
Palin was a HUGE mistake, and we really dodged a bullet with that reckless pick.
News is trickling out from inside the McCain campaign, and it’s not good.
Palin did not know which countries were in NAFTA.
Palin did not know Africa is a continent.
Vetting? What vetting. We are sooooo lucky she was sent packing.
Report comment to moderator
#27
The Republicans lost because they became Washington insiders and lost touch with the base. The moderates have largely been purged or will be purged from the party. We need to reconnect with traditional Republican values of lower taxes, smaller government and caring for people. The party became enamored with themselves and sold us down the river.
You just noticed?
Report comment to moderator
#60
RPN, isn’t your purpose over here? Do you plan to hang around long continuing to run down your betters?
Report comment to moderator
McCain could’ve won but he blew it;
1) Picking Palin was a huge error. After the announcement, it was quickly apparent that Palin wasn’t vetted. Although there was an initial wave of support simply by the novelty value; the Couric interview killed it. Not as bad as the Eaglehart pick but it did indicate a reckless decision making process. Palin also caused dissension within the campaign – according to FOX.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
Lieberman would’ve really shook things up and with less fallout but the old Rove machine didn’t approve which brings us to
2) hiring the same campaign team that destroyed him in South Carolina 8 years ago. He tried to be elected via the religious right-neocon coalition yet their numbers are shrinking especially when you look at mistake #3
3) a reluctance to declare the neo-con economic policies an error. furthermore, his erratic panic driven response to the bailout ruined his credibility.
4) His response to the economic crisis was part of his inability to develop any consistent message. He constantly contradicted himself.
With Joe Lieberman and a refusal to support the bailout, he would have appeared as the McCain of 2000 and as a possible winner.
Report comment to moderator
“Vetting? What vetting. We are sooooo lucky she was sent packing.”
If only we were so lucky…
Report comment to moderator
Three words: George W. Bush.
Americans, notably many nominal Republicans and “undecideds”, were so incredibly tired of Bush that they were ready to elect “anybody but another Bush”.
It was not possible for McCain to run the sort of hope-based “we can do it!” type campaign. Mainly because he has too much in common with Bush, even if only superficially (i.e. same party).
I think the Iraq issue was huge as well. For many voters, the issue came down to “Republicans (i.e. Bush) got us into this thing in the first place, how can I trust another one to get us out?”
Report comment to moderator
It may not have been his No. 1 gaffe, but picking Palin was weak sauce. Pandering of the first order, IMO.
And people are surmising she’s gonna be hot political stuff for the next four years?! I’ll have what they’re drinkin’! Palin sure gave Miss Teen South Carolina a run for her money!
On the other hand … that gives her four years to study …
Report comment to moderator
“Lieberman would’ve really shook things up and with less fallout”
It definitely can be argued that Lieberman would have allowed moderates to lean that way. But the abortion voters would have sulked. McCain picked his poison, and I’m just glad most Americans didn’t drink it. woo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Frank-
Great video. That is SO Sarah Palin! Especially now we learn she didn’t know Africa is a continent. I shouldn’t be laughing that McCain was willing to risk our nation with his cynical VP pick, but it is hilarious stuff now we have avoided that road. Thank the Lord!
Report comment to moderator
Some will undoubtedly view me as a pessimist, but I am having a hard time seeing how conservatives ever gain power again for the following reasons:
1. We are several generations into the liberal domination of most things academic. Let’s face it, public school teachers and university profs for the most part lean left, maybe even way left. (My conservative bias says that most conservatives feel more empowered by being producers rather than by being educators whereas the opposite is true for many liberals.)
2. At the same time the family structure in our culture has changed to the point where it is no longer the norm that the family is together for a meal every day, let alone have any kind of discussion on issues. So on average parents have less influence in molding the way their children think, making my first point above even worse.
3. Journalism has changed from reporting the news to making the news. There were more polls in October alone than there were in all of 2004 for the presidential election. And it is widely understood that a pollster can make the poll reflect whatever their bias is. My personal view is that in large measure the media reflects a liberal bias, in terms of what they choose to report or not report, in how the opinion polls are conducted, and in the fact that they openly support one candidate. I don’t have a problem with members of media being what they are. Just don’t pretend to be neutral while really being biased.
4. It is the stated goal of some members of the left to shut conservatives out of the one medium that is dominated by conservatives (talk radio) by making it commercially non-viable for stations to carry conservative voices without also carrying liberal voices. If no one will listen to liberal voices (a la Air America) then no advertisers want to advertise on their time slots, meaning that the stations start losing money in those time slots. So eventually the radio station either does something plain vanilla all the time or goes out of business.
Given these four points, we are reaching (or more likely have already reached) critical mass for the left. I heard Rush Limbaugh talking today about cleaning house in the Republican party. I have heard Sean Hannity for weeks complain about how pollsters have oversampled Democrats by 10 percentage points. It occurs to me that people that identify themselves as liberals might outnumber self-identified conservatives by 10 percent, so this might not be too far off. I agree with Rush that the right will not win elections by moving to the center or (as is perceived of McCain) center-left. But I am not sure there are enough people still on the right to win that way either.
If the education system produces liberal thinking, and at this point parents either agree with that thinking (having been taught the same way of thinking themselves) or don’t take the time to teach their children to think in a conservative manner, liberalism is only going to grow and conservativism is only going to dwindle.
Robert Heinlein wrote the following in the 1980s, and I fear we are there now.
“A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens…which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it…which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses’
“Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader–the barbarians enter Rome.”
In fact we are not only there financially, but politically as well. One side can control what others are taught, thus swaying the greater majority to that side.
My solution?
Live my life with my wife and children, teaching my children to serve God and not expect to have the majority of people around them viewing life in the same way. Interact with society in such a way that people want what I have rather than being pushed away by it. Live with joy, not with fear, not with anger at the way things are. Oh and Maranatha.
Report comment to moderator
sarah palin brought votes to mccain. if the gop blames her for this defeat they will alienate millions of voters. john mccain is a hero who has given everything for his country. he is the victim of a totally biased press who finally admitted their bias two days before the election. i wish obama the best for the sake of our nation. i will never vote for him because of his support of partial birth abortion. i will work harder to defeat him in 2012. i also hope that this so called brillant man learns that we have 50 not 57 states.
Report comment to moderator
Rad Right-
Sarah brought him votes from the “rad right,” but she cost him votes from the center. Fortunately we have all been spared.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 66
Maybe you can resurrect Ron Paul, he certainly was your biggest bust for a candidate – sour grapes won’t help your little pulpit against Gov. Palin – forget the sauce Frank, ….. Ron Paul sauces up whatever he’s pushing which is nothing – he’s a none voter – then there the AMBER ALERT, which Ron Paul voted against which has saved many lives – that’s a problem no sauce will cure!
Report comment to moderator
Peter V (69) is right. This doesn’t need to be the end of conservatism, though. It probably is a hiatus for social conservatism but I’m a postmellenialist — Things will get better!
The time may have come for the Libertarians. They push for less government in everything, which means they offend social conservatives on some issues and liberals on all points. If the Democrats do everything they’ve promised, more and more people will realize that their work no longer belongs to them, but to the State. Americans, even public school-educated Americans, claim they believe in individual liberty and would like to own their own labor. Only the Libertarians can credibly claim that individual liberty is their platform.
Report comment to moderator
Peter V post 69,
while I disagree with much of the characterizatio of your points, I do believe that you are one of the few conservatives who seem tohave made a solid effort at making an incisive analysis of the state of conservatism in the U.S.
I might suggest coloring your analysis with the observation that there seems to eb a trend over time so that what is considered left wing today is considered right wing tomorrow (consider something as simple as one man one vote).
But unless and until the Republican party goes through some honest and deep soul searching such as suggested by Peter V, they will, I suggest, continue to wander int he wilderness.
I will say that a swing to the right does not, given the timber of America, seem like a winning strategy. This seems instead to be an approach which guarentees that the Republican party is a (nearly) permanent minority party.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin, I suggest, is a symptom, not the cause of the present challenge.
The Republican party has failed rather spectacularly at the poles, despite a set of assurances by various conservative pundits that the U.S. is a 51/49 country. I suggest that the recent evidence suggests that it is not. And further that the body politic as a whole is craving unity not division.
If the Republican party swings to the right, then indeed Sarah Palin is a valid and appropriate emblem. But do consider that she appeals almost exclusively to the party base, and at this point this is perhaps approaching 10% of the population (an interesting number to explore further – I suggest that it is not above 15% at the most).
But as I noted, if the Republican party swings to the right, it is also establishing itself as a semi-permanent minority party.
If it swings to the center, and I suggest that to succeed it must just as every successful political effort int he U.S. must swing to the center eventually, then based on Palin’s 2008 campaign performance, she will be a toxic symbol. She will need much rehabilitation to recast her as a centrist symbol and leader.
Report comment to moderator
The biggest mistake of the election was not in the presidential race. Dole’s horrible godless ad cost her, and probably McCain, thousands of votes.
Dole’s challenger Hagan is known to my extended family. I may disagree with her, but I respect her and she deserved better than a puerile Christian-baiting personal attack. Dole underestimated North Carolina voters. Dole deserved to lose.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA (72): … Ron Paul sauces up whatever he’s pushing which is nothing – he’s a none voter – then there the AMBER ALERT, which Ron Paul voted against which has saved many lives – that’s a problem no sauce will cure!
FRANK: I’d give ten bucks to know just what it is with you and Ron Paul’s vote against the bill that included both the federal amber alert AND the expansion of unconstitutional federal powers in the “war” on drugs.
On the other hand, since we have covered this ground numerous times, and since you have refused to discuss the issue honestly every time … I’ll just keep the ten.
Unless, Victoria,you’d finally like to explain why, in the name of fighting Ecstasy use, the government should be allowed to prosecute club owners and confiscate their clubs for their patrons’ drug use?
(I’m betting ten bucks you won’t, though … )
Report comment to moderator
Frank In Spokane post 77,
you are raising a very troubling aspect of the war on drugs approach which is probably worthy of much deeper discussion.
The breadth of the the governments ability to confiscate assets even tenuously associated with drug activity is arguably much too broad.
Nice observation.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA (72): Maybe you can resurrect Ron Paul, he certainly was your biggest bust for a candidate …
FRANK: No need to resurrect the living, Vicky.
Ron Paul handily beat the GOP challenger for his safe congressional seat by 2:1 … while the Dems knew better than to even bother running someone against him.
Dr. Paul has a new book out about the constitutionalist revolution he helped launch with his POTUS campaign.
And he’ll likely continue to do what he has been doing for years — speaking on the House floor at oh-dark-thirty with 2 or 3 people present, solely for the purpose of having some truth entered into the Congressional Record.
And we shall almost certainly continue seeing more and more of him on Fox and CNN and MSNBC as the economy continues to unravel, given his warnings during the campaign about our unconstitutional fiat (look it up) monetary policy, the Federal Reserve, and our leaders’ — and citizens’ — refusal to live within their means.
Sarah Palin was a flash-in-the-pan soccer mom hottie that McCain picked in a cynical effort to try to ralley the religious right and salvage his sorry-a__ campaign. She was good for a laugh, but face it — she couldn’t think her way out of a soggy Kleenex.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and a principled statesman who humbly but firmly speaks truth to power, regardless of its party affiliation.
I was hopeful for Paul’s POTUS campaign, but I didn’t put all my eggs in that basket. I knew it was a long shot.
But Paul ain’t gone yet. To paraphrase Twain, “Vicky’s reports of Ron Paul’s political demise are premature.”
Let’s see where Palin’s at 3 or 4 years from now.
Report comment to moderator
Frank hit on somthing that’s a major problem in our legislative process: Loading up a bill, which should pass on its own merits with unrelated garbage which would never pass muster if it were brought up as its own issue.
In order to get a rose we have to take a thorn that we would not otherwise take. Sometimes the thorns are tacked onto the roses for the sole purpose of killing the rose, and then sometimes the thorns are just plain pork. And BOTH parties pull that crap.
Nothing of any substance will ever be accomplished until there is a line item veto for the president to use. It will never happen, because the very people who bring oyu this kind of politics and legislative nonsense have to vote to limit their own power. They are not working for the greater good.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (78): The breadth of the the governments ability to confiscate assets even tenuously associated with drug activity is arguably much too broad.
Nice observation.
FRANK: Sister Vicky gets all the credit.
Some months ago, she was fussing and fuming about Dr. Paul’s ***VOTE AGAINST THE AMBER ALERT BILL WHICH SAVES MANY LIVES!!!*** (Pant! Pant! Huff! Puff!)
Knowing Paul’s constitutional principles, I knew there was a rational explanation for his vote. I surmised that it had to do either with
• decentralized government power — e.g., perhaps all 50 states already had an Amber Alert that worked just fine, which would make the federal AA redundant and a waste of money; or
• the hidden/less-publicized expansion of federal power.
Turned out it was the second.
“They” were trying to pass the “RAVE” Act (roughly described in (77) above), but it kept falling flat on its face (and justifiably so).
So, being cynical statist bastards that “they” are, “they” attached the “Amber Alert” bill to the “RAVE” Act. After all, who would possibly vote against saving the lives of kidnaped children?!
Ron Paul would, if it were attached to the unconstitutional expansion of federal power at the expense of non-criminal property owners.
The lesson, Vicky?
When you mix unconstitutional laws with good intentions, you still have unconstitutional laws.
Report comment to moderator
And here is your mistake, America. Greatest one.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2008/11/06/americans_embrace_childish_unity
Report comment to moderator
ukranian ally post 82,
I suggest this article mischaracterizes the situation on a broad number of points.
But the only proof will be how things actually roll out. We will have a good image perhaps of how things are actually developing by perhaps March 2009.
Report comment to moderator
the following article discusses some of the issues being raised by Peter V:
Republican identity crisis
Report comment to moderator
The following is a discussion of these issues as well:
The changing electorate
Report comment to moderator
The Obama enthusiasts have deluded himself into thinking that the election Tuesday signifies a shift to the left in the American electorate.In truth America remains essentially a center-right country.
Obama himself understood this when, after a primary in which he ran from the hard left, he shifted clearly- though somewhat unbelievably- during the general election to the center-right on national security (the Surge, wiretapping,) taxes, oil drilling, and guns, among other issues. This is rather similar to 2006 when the Democrats found candidates for Congress who were pro-life, pro guns along with some odious economic populism.
The country hasn’t lurched to the left; the Democrats have awoken to its center-right persuasion and cleverly played to it. They even tried to win over we evangelicals, though this proved to be rather marginally successful due mainly to the issues of abortion and Wright’s black-liberation position.
The real problem with the GOP is that Pres. Bush and the Congress including the Republicans became enamored of power and uncontrolled spending including a lot of the earmarked pork ilk. Many independents and Republicans had become fed up with this.
Should Obama and the Democrats misread the situation, they will pay the price of overreaching similar to LBJ in ‘64, Carter in ‘76, and Clinton in 2000. LBJ and Carter paid for it with single terms; all of them paid for it by getting clobbered in mid-term elections.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, in the above it should have been Clinton in ‘92
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 86,
and on what basis do you conclude:
“In truth America remains essentially a center-right country.”
By contrast it appears that the country as a whole is far more tolerant of government intervention than it was perhaps 6 months ago: see bailout plan.
I do agree with this point:
“Should Obama and the Democrats misread the situation, they will pay the price of overreaching similar to LBJ in ‘64, Carter in ‘76, and Clinton in 2000. LBJ and Carter paid for it with single terms; all of them paid for it by getting clobbered in mid-term elections.”
and I suggest that Obama is quite aware of this.
In fact I suspect that one of Obama’s challenges will be that his supporters are more liberal than he is and will be pushing for more expansive action that Obama has actually promised in his proposals.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Frank! I love it. Looooove it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I explained above that the best proof that America is a center-right country politically is that Obama and the Democrats in general gear their national elections to the center-right. Carter and Clinton ran clearly from the center right. Obama during the recent general election, to the extent that he deigned to descend into the crass realm of politics, ended up praising the Surge, talking about reducing taxes except for the evil rich, allowing some drilling, and breathing fire against Pakistan. He even stated the ridiculous position that Israel was entitled to East Jerusalem.
Of course the mainstream media, like you, that pined for an Obama victory is now salivating about this election as a mandate for assorted liberal pieties, which, of course, ignores the reality of Obama’s feat of rumming hard-left in the primaries and center-right- excepting, of course the usual populist economic shrieking- in the general election. One can admire the ruthlessness of Obama’s propensity for realpolitik, though it would be wise to at least be aware of it.
Report comment to moderator
Peter leavitt post 90,
I suggest that the entire political spectrum in this country just moved to center-left, and the proof is the bailout bill.
So I suggest yor evidence is faulty for arguing for a center-right country.
If you look carefully at my posts, I have argued that Obama is in fact either center or slightly center-right and he will have to restrain his supporters. I always found the “most liberal member of the senate” comments very amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
Fortunately the AMBER ALERT BILL passed – Ron Paul has little impact in Congress, everyone knows he votes NO on almost everything. Discussing the AMBER alert bill with you would be fruitless, just as it would be with Ron Paul, so keep your 10.00 I don’t need it – however the country certainly has been much better off with the AMBER ALERT bill -
Report comment to moderator
#91
Again, Musing, your “suggestions” are worthless. The voters showed no such shift.
They voted for ambiguous “change.” They filled in the blank with their own version of it.
You picked Liberal, Leftist views. Other people picked “will pay my mortgage.” Many people picked “will make everything better for Black people.” Some people picked “will turn power over to the young.” (See Steve)
The thing is that “fill in the blank” or as Obama himself put it, “project your view onto the screen” works for awhile. It gets people all excited.
The problem is that no one can fulfill all of the “projections.” Because each person (including Musing) has filled in who Obama is with their own personal desires, many of which will be conflicting, there can be nothing but disappointment for many of those people when Obama doesn’t fulfill their interpretation of “change.”
Report comment to moderator
The breadth of the the governments ability to confiscate assets even tenuously associated with drug activity is arguably much too broad.
******AAAAK! Something I agree with Musing on! Lord have mercy, the world really is coming to an end!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 90,
now with the win by Merkeley:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/senate.election/index.html
and the elimination of house members from new England, I suggest we are seeing to aspects to the Republican party:
1) it is increasing in its right wing behavior
2) it is becoming increasingly regionalized primarily in the South
And I suggest that this provided further data to support a model of the U.S. becoming increasingly center-left.
Report comment to moderator
trs post 94,
relax and let your blood pressure drop: I started as a Goldwater Republican.
Report comment to moderator
trs post 93,
I suggest that the following suggest otherwise:
1) the win by Merkley in Oregon
2) the elimination of all Republican house members from new England
3) the wide spread support for the bailout bill and government action to improve the economy
4) the map showing the increasing regionalization of the Republican party
The country is now effectively a moderate center-left country.
Will it stay there? This really depends on the Obama administration and how well they perform.
Report comment to moderator
According to Fox, which IS the station that broke the information on Sarah Palin’s lack of knowledge on Africa and NAFTA etc, Sarah did not hurt McCain’s chances. According the them, McCain gained a HUGE upsurge when he chose Sarah, which he maintained, until HE blew it with his response to the economic crisis.
Now, there is some debate about whether his response played a greater roll, or the crisis itself, but that is when his approval numbers took a nose-dive and stayed there. It had nothing to do with Palin. If anything, she did do exactly what McCain’s campaign thought she’d do.
Still, while I like what Sarah represents, I do think she’s come across as an airhead. Mind you, I don’t think that someone who can successfully run a state as governor with a very high approval rating IS an airhead, but she definitely came across that way.
So, if she were to be a player in the future, she would have to do a great deal of work. She would NOT have to turn against her principles, because, despite what Musing says, that doesn’t seem to have been a problem if you look at the numbers.
But, she would have to prove that she was intelligent and knowledgeable.
Unfortunately, she partly did this to herself, it was partly done to her by the media and shiftless, rude people like RPN, and it is partly just due to the fact that she’s pretty.
I hate to say it (and I am completely admitting that it is only a part of the problem), but pretty women not only have to be as good as other people, they have to be BETTER. It is still okay to discriminate against pretty women.
Until I got a bit too chunky after children, I was a pretty woman. (Some would say I still am, but I know that I need to lose weight.) At any rate, I am also classified as “gifted” and had a very high grade point average in college. Still, I was often, if not even usually, treated as if I were a “dumb blonde” and stupider than dirt.
I still get that occasionally, so I do understand. Sarah has to overcome the handicap of being pretty. It can work for her in some ways, but it also works against her being taken seriously as an intellectual.
Add to that her poor showing in the interviews she took part in, and now the after-the-election revelations from Fox, and she would really have to work to prove she was intelligent before she could become a serious player.
Right now, she would come across as an embarrassment. Some of that perception is deserved (her fault and her handler’s fault) and some of that was not (the media and her looks).
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I live in Oregon. Since I’ve lived here (over 16 years now), we have been a divided state.
The entire state votes Conservative, EXCEPT for a few pockets around the cities. Always has.
We Conservatives almost always lose by a few percentage points.
I’m surprised and saddened by Merkley’s win. I was pulling strongly for Smith.
But, Smith was painted as a friend of Bush and as someone who represented the “way things are” in Washington. He’s been there a long time (I think the entire time I’ve been here in Oregon, but I don’t want to look it up, so I could be wrong.)
So, my premise still stands. People were after change…amorphous, something different, fill-in-the-blank with your own dream, change.
Report comment to moderator
And, I want to point out that the Merkley win was by a very few points and was hard fought.
Still, it greatly disappoints me. I can’t lie about that. Merkley does nor represent me, nor does he represent the vast majority of Oregon.
He does represent the cities.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 99/100,
but of course all the turns from Republican to Democratic were hard fought. But they were hard fought in many cases in areas which used to be secure Republican areas.
What I suggest we are seeing is:
1) the turning to the right of the Republican party: c.f. calls to get rid of RINOS
2) the regionalization of the Republican party: increasingly it is a party of the south and parts of the midwest
Neither of these bodes well for a party which aspires to become a national majority party. They will need to regain the center and spread their appeal.
Of course if Obama seriously blunders, all bets are off. Based on the discipline of his campaign, do you really expect an Obama administration blunder? Is waiting for a blunder a strategy?
Report comment to moderator
trs post 100,
now you have hit upon a possibly important issue in bringing up the dichotomy between the cities and the rural areas. It used to be between the cities and a suburban/rural coalition. This seems to be changing to a city/suburban coalition against the rural areas.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
The Republicans (and everyone else) were saying the exact things about the Democratic party after the last elections. People were predicting its death or dismemberment.
If you don’t remember that, you are either much younger than I thought you were, or you are having a selective memory moment.
This election, which was so close and shouldn’t have been, shows nothing more than that the middle of the road voters wanted change.
The rest, on both sides, did just as they’ve always done.
The Middle is a fickle group. They swung with the Republicans for awhile, and now they’re swinging with the Democrats for awhile.
If you think you’ve won them permanently, I guess we’ll just have to see, but I think you’re deluding yourself.
If your 52% creates a whole new world, then what did the last 8 years plus mean when it swung slightly the other way?
I know you are excited, and so you’re trying to convince yourself by “convincing” the rest of us, but I’m old enough to have seen it, and heard it, all before.
I would say the same had the Republicans won.
The extremists always want to claim a “mandate” or claim that this proves the country is moving their way, and so on. It hasn’t been true, and I don’t think it is true now.
Mind you, if we Conservatives don’t train up our youth better (i.e. not just turn them over to public school which is very Liberally leaning), then what you want WILL be true. But, it isn’t yet.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 101,
and I keep repeating:
Look at the map
And look at the demographics from the exit polls
And look at the NY Times diagram of the shift in age demographics
I suggest that germane issue is not that change occurred, but rather can Obama execute to demonstrate that the change is justified. There is also the interesting question of whether it can outlast his administration.
Report comment to moderator
post 102,
that should be the NY Times article on regional demographics.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I have looked at the map. Blacks and other ethnic minorities went for Obama. Almost completely. It was because he was Black…not because of the issues.
In addition, young, single women went for him by a 70% margin. The Blacks, Hispanics, and young women put him over the top.
Otherwise, you are seeing the same exact trends as before. There were no other significant surprises.
Add to this the disappointment with the war, the severe economic downturn, and having had the same party in power for eight years, and you got a SLIGHT majority that put Obama in power.
Where you get the sweeping statements about a whole “shift in belief” and so on, I don’t know, unless it is from your wishful thinking.
I did also admit, that we are losing our young people. We are. 90% of teachers are Democrats and the educational establishment (including teacher training colleges) lean heavily Left. We on the right are abdicating our children to this establishment and have been for some time.
Except for homeschoolers and some private schoolers, we on the right are losing our children. We’re losing them in droves…not just politically, but far more importantly, we’re losing them from God and the church.
If we do not do something to counter this, what you dream of WILL be true someday as this new generation takes over from the older generation.
To me, this is the number one issue that Republicans and all Conservatives need to address. We were caught sleeping. We were so busy running the country and winning elections that we sent our children to be indoctrinated into Leftist thinking day in and day out at school, and never once questioned what we were doing.
Our colleges too are so Liberally leaning that it is almost impossible to find a Conservative, or even a middle-of-the-road college in college lists. (I think we found about 8 of them that were secular in all of the U.S. on one homeschool to college list to which I belong.)
This is where you will win if we don’t wake up.
But, as for this election, it came out as it was expected to come out (even if you did get less votes than you should have based on circumstances). It shows nothing about any party’s permanent death. It shows nothing about the country moving Left.
It does show that people wanted change, and Obama got on that band-wagon early and ran a good campaign with it.
Report comment to moderator
trs post 104,
if I am seeing the same trends as before, please explain:
1) Virginia
2) Ohio
3) Indiana
4) Iowa
5) Colorado
6) New Mexico
7) Nevada
9) near win in Missouri
10) we can stipulate that Florida was the same trends if you like
This is not the same regional demopgraphics we have seen fomr say 1980 to 2008: we have seen a fracture of the Southern/Western alliance which generally kept the Republicans in power from about 1980 to 2008.
If this were a reprise of the Kerry states, I would agree. It is not.
But pretend that nothing has changed: it is not in my interest for the Republicans to wake up and comprehend their strategic errors.
Report comment to moderator
trs post 104,
come to think of it, I have encountered this same reaction before. It was as we were going into the 2008 election and a number of conservatives kept insisting that this is a 51/49 country and that the Southern states would stay Republican.
Report comment to moderator
Blacks and other ethnic minorities went for Obama. Almost completely. It was because he was Black…not because of the issues.
Explain why whites didn’t go exclusively with mccain and just maybe you can assign causation from the correlation otherwise I can make just as stupid of statement regarding why “real americans” voted for mccain–because he’s white.
Report comment to moderator
GOD post 107,
thanks for the comment – an excellent point.
It is also worth noting that latinos, who have apparently traditionally been Republican (breaking the correlation TRS was posing), seemed to have broken for Obama this time.
Thanks for the note.
Report comment to moderator
TRS (94): ******AAAAK! Something I agree with Musing on! Lord have mercy, the world really is coming to an end!
FRANK: In that spirit, TRS, I hope that you and Musing will check out Lew Rockwell’s recent interview with Naomi Wolf (50-min. audio).
As several of us are aware, there are in fact many areas of agreement between (some people on) “the right” and on “the left.”
Your agreement with Musing is one such area. You’ll hear several others in Rockwell’s and Wolf’s discussion.
(And if you like it … please pass it on!)
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA (92): Discussing the AMBER alert bill with you would be fruitless …
FRANK: … but I don’t want to discuss the Amber Alert bill. I want to discuss the unconstitutional and dangerous “RAVE” Act to which the Amber Alert Bill was attached.
But you seem to be incapable of mental multi-tasking as re. philosophical/political propositions. All you know is “AMBER ALERT = GOOD,” with zero regard to the poisonous provision that was passed along with it.
VICTORIA (92): … the country certainly has been much better off with the AMBER ALERT bill …
FRANK: … at any and all costs to justice and liberty, Vicky?
Good grief, I think you just might eat a cow pie of a Twinkie were sitting atop it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You are like a broken record. You SO want this to be something new and be a “mandate” and be fill-in-the-blank “change” (as you interpret it, of course.)
Explain the last 8 years. My side (against my wishes) said all of the same things that YOUR side is now saying. We never learn.
Explain only 52% and all the millions of people you’d like to “marginalize.”
Except that you’re not catatonic, you really should view the first funny video that RPN posted on the thread about humor.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
YOU WRITE:
“FRANK: … at any and all costs to justice and liberty, Vicky?”
241 childrens lives are worth it, even if you can’t see it.
Please keep in mind this was dated January 13, 2006, there are many other children’s lives in over two years which have been saved.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES COMMEMORATES 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF AMBER ALERT
Program Has Saved Lives of 241 Abducted Children Since Inception
January 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today commemorated the 10-year anniversary of the AMBER Alert program by pointing to the tremendous success of the initiative that has saved the lives of 241 abducted children nationwide and outlining important next steps to expand the program’s reach and effectiveness.
“Today we honor the memory of Amber Hagerman, and we are reminded that the death or disappearance of just one child is a price that no parent should have to bear,” said Attorney General Gonzales. “I am proud that the Department of Justice is part of the effort to build a system that tracks abducted children more quickly and alerts police and citizens as soon as possible. The AMBER Alert program has made a meaningful difference, and for the sake of Amber and every other child who we’ve lost in this manner, we must continue to rededicate ourselves to the safety and support of the most vulnerable in our society.”
Attorney General Gonzales spoke at a ceremony honoring the memory of Amber Hagerman, whose abduction and murder in 1996 was the impetus for the AMBER Alert, the nation’s first early warning system for missing or abducted children. The Attorney General praised the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) participation in a pilot program to receive AMBER Alerts in the Washington, D.C. area through OJP’s e-mail system and encouraged the other components of the Department of Justice to join in this expansion of the reach and effectiveness of AMBER Alert.
Attorney General Gonzales noted the remarkable progress made under the program:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2006/OJJDP06031.htm
Report comment to moderator
trs post 113,
I am a broken record?
I suggest that perhaps you don’t wnat this to be something new.
I have posed a variety of data which suggests that the electorate has changed:
1) regional demographics
2) age demographics
3) electorate support for government intervention in the economy
and of course
4) the Obama win by a very large marign in places where Demopcrats ahve not been competitive
and you have refuted none of this data.
You have argued that blacks voted for Obama, but that is akin to arguing that the Irish voted for Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts: interesting but not information laden nor definitive. And you have not refuted GOD’s observations.
I do suggest that it is your arugment wich ie bereft of data and you who are desparately hoping that things haven’t changed.
Your argument would be much more pursuasive if you raised points on why the change does not have staying power. There are points here, but that you do not raise them is itself, I suggest, telling.
But then by the defintion of a conservative they tend to deny change!
Report comment to moderator
TRS, stop trying to confuse Musing with the facts. The fellow is in a state of Obama reverie; it will take awhile for him to touch bottom. Let him enjoy the touching dream.
Report comment to moderator
True, Peter.
He can’t get over the whole MATH thing that 52.4% is not much more than a simple majority, which didn’t even happen until AFTER the economic debacle. (McCain was leading until then.)
I understand the desire to be elated and hopeful. So, I understand his need to twist things to look like more than they are.
And, Musing, I will not even READ, let alone answer, anyone who uses a blasphemous handle when posting.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt/TRS,
what no refutation of my points 1 – 4?
Thought not!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt/TRS,
now there is one serious challenge which can be made to my argument, and I am absolutley baffled that no one has raised it.
Report comment to moderator
So the following is clear:
Obama has broken the Republican Southern strategy and has established a strength among an age demographic which is very positive for the political future.
And Obama has established a fund raising machine and political army which is pretty much unmatched in the country today or possibly ever.
And Obama has accomplished this without becoming beholden to the national Democratic party.
It is therefore highly likely that, barring a major misstep as president or a great external event changing the situation, Obama is in a strong position politically.
But is this political legacy one which will endure after Obama leaves the scene?
This is a valid question (which does not refute the present fracture of the Republican party geographically) and one which an introspective Democratic party, should it be able to be introspective in its present state of euphoria, should be considering just as much as the Republican party should consider the impact of their recent failure at the polls.
If the Democratic party fails to consider its situation, it too will be as bereft as the Republican party presently is, but it will occur several years latter.
It will be interesting to watch and will provide a strong commentary on Obama’s leadership skills and the innate resiliency of the Democratic party.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
If Congress had conjoined a federal Amber Alert with a bill authorizing the military conscription of women, would you still have supported such a bill because “241 childrens lives are worth it”?
To put it another way, how bad would a companion provision have to be before you would excuse a congressman for “voting against the Amber Alert”? Can you offer an example?
Report comment to moderator
To put it another way, how bad would a companion provision have to be before you would excuse a congressman for “voting against the Amber Alert”? Can you offer an example?
—–
Come on now. It wouldn’t be a “religious” argument if there was a counter example that could falsify her stand.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
You will just have to accept the AMBER ALERT, you can whine all the way to Washington, or Texas – have lunch with Ron Paul, the two of you could commiserate for hours. What a plan!
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
how does one shrug one’s shoulders in a web discussion?
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
so let me try it this way.
Did Frank ever suggest that the Amber alert law was a bad idea?
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry musing, they are like guerrillas. They fade into the country side and shift the conversation (ron paul attacks vs real issues) as soon as they are caught in inconsistencies. Notice how the income tax outrage ended once someone pointed out what the numbers really mean?
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes.
—-
This would be true even if there was a flat 1% tax across all incomes!! It is kinda amazing how you can only get money out of people that have it!
Report comment to moderator
123 – Victoria, make that six. My husband and I, Frank and his lovely bride, and Ron Paul and his wife will sit down to dinner together. And I can think of a bunch more folks who’d love to be there as well. Lots more.
And we shall end the tyrannical Amber Alert System! You’ll just have to rely on local law enforcement.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Bianca, you’re out of luck, the AMBER ALERT is staying – Ron Paul has little to say about anything, he’s the NO VOTE GUY who loses!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I’ll give you this – you never miss a beat. At least none of us have to worry about you not reading our posts… I think.
The Soviets thought the Soviet Union was staying too. Who thought the Berlin Wall would fall? How do you know the AAS is here to stay? I mean, seriously… are you also one of these people who think the fifty states can’t break up? Do you believe in “One Nation Indivisible” and “Our Blessed Union None Can Sever”?
Support Local Law: End the Federalist Amber Alert System.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!