Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
'House call': Thousands rally on Capitol Hill to fight the proposed healthcare bill 
Click to Print
Include Comments
“Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame”
Now that Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin has returned home to Alaska, she’s striking back at critics within the McCain campaign who blame her for the GOP ticket’s defeat, calling them cowardly for speaking to reporters anonymously. As for her being touted as a demanding diva, Palin said that all she ever asked for was “a Diet Dr Pepper once in a while.”
Allies of the governor have also come out in her defense.
McCain adviser Nicole Wallace, who some initially thought was leaking the nasty comments about Palin, defended her on NBC’s “Today” show this morning: “She is, perhaps, the most un-diva politician I’ve ever seen.”
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in an interview with Fox News, said, “She’s the one that energized the base, she’s the one that got the crowds out. … She’s the one that comes out of this without any scars and now they’re trying to give her some. John McCain should come out and say, ‘This is ridiculous,’ and set the record straight.”
So why hasn’t Sen. McCain done that?
back to top122 Comments to ““Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame””
“So why hasn’t Sen. McCain done that?”
Duh! Because McCain’s first impulse is to only graciously defend liberals and Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, Sarah did energize the far-right of the party. Fortunately the rest of America said “no thanks”.
There are at least 5 substantial factions within the Republican party:
1. The religious/social conservatives (Dr. Dobson, et al).
2. The libertarian conservatives (led by Ron Paul).
3. The traditional conservatives (fiscally conservative, non-interventionist in foreign policy). Think Pat Buchanan.
4. The moderate conservatives (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Think Olympia Snow.
5. The neo-conservatives (expansionist foreign policy, socially moderate). Think A.E.I.
We all get the pleasure of watching the factions slug it out for the next few years. They had already started fighting before election day. I’ll be glad to hold their coats
Just as the Democrats couldn’t win with just their far-left base, the Republicans can’t win with just their far-right base. You have to be willing to be more inclusive. The conservatives in England appear to have learned that lesson. It’s meant moving away from the far-right social issues and more toward the middle – which is where most people reside in a modern democracy.
Yes, Sarah commands leadership of the far-right faction in the Republican Party at the moment. Leaders come and go. In a few years it could be someone else leading them. I just know that if they aren’t willing to reach out and compromise with their fellow Republicans (and even with independents), the party will remain in the minority for the foreseeable future.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
It was not about Palin either way. The top of the tickets are always what drive elections. The fact that Sarah Palin is enormously liked by a wide spectrum of Americans does not make her a “leader” yet. She will need to perform and that is how it should be.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Trust me, McCain didn’t lose this election because he was too conservative. More likely it was just the opposite. And if conservatives ever abandon the “far-right” issues such as abortion and fiscal conservatism (esp. abortion), they’ll never win another election. In fact, they’d probably be replaced by the Constitution party in two or three election cycles.
Why doesn’t anybody ever call liberals (like Obama) “far-left”? He was much, much, much, much farther left than McCain was right.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, the conservative base was rather ostrocized by the media and the GOP. John McCain was an inclusive Republican but not a partisan. The problem is that only partisans win elections and Obama proves that perfectly.
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny to watch Anlir pretend that she knows more about conservatives than conservatives themselves.
Report comment to moderator
CNN news last night was reveling in the Republican meltdown. One commentator said that he wanted to plaster his walls with Republican misery. He said he was marinating in Republican backbiting like a delicious sauce.
This is all sad to see, but the liberal media is digging as low as is humanly possible.
Report comment to moderator
Because he lost.
His gamble didn’t pay off. Why should he spend any more time on her?
Sad.
Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Report comment to moderator
As the song continues (and McCain should grab a microphone for this one): ” . . . it’s my own d**n fault.”
Report comment to moderator
Maybe at the 2nd debate when he wandered aimlessly and looked like he was looking for his lost dog, Mr. Puddles, he was really just lookin’ for his lost shaker of salt?
In any case, he’s now going to be wasting away in Margaritaville.
Report comment to moderator
The GOP meltdown is a good thing. We need two vibrant parties in this country, and at this time the GOP is in complete tatters. They have to hit bottom, and they are almost there. This should be a rebuilding time, and hopefully there will be some realistic reflection going on that will allow them to come back to the center where the American people live. If the GOP cuddles up in the corner with the extremist fundamentalist right wing of the party (think Palinistas and Bushies), they are in for a long wait to return to relevance.
As for the rift between the Palin and McCain camps? It’s sad that McCain picked such a woefully unprepared candidate, and put the nation at great risk should he have won. Thank the Lord that did not happen. But, I’m not surprised there is this rift. There were more than a few times she contradicted McCain’s platform on the stump, and even once referred to the ticket as Palin-McCain.
Hopefully she will go away and the GOP will not be lured into following her down that dead end. There isn’t time.
Report comment to moderator
Obviously John McCain is not a member of the far-right of the party. That’s what he picked Sarah Palin for. A fair number of Republicans were appalled at the selection and expressed their displeasure of it. It wasn’t just Democrats who were opposed to her.
The religious/social conservatives should be ostracized. In their current formation, they’re a plague on the Republican Party and it’s historical “big tent” philosophy. There is no doubt that the religious/social conservatives are a significant presence in the party and even control some of the levers of power. But they have succeeded in alienating the other factions, particularly the libertarian faction. They need all their factions plus the independents to put together a winning ticket.
Look, the Democrats have gone through these same fights over the last 8 years (longer, really). We’ve got our own factions. But when you’re out of power long enough and you want to win badly enough, you stop fighting each other and go to work expanding the party. That’s what the Democrats did, and that’s why they won. Sticking your head in the sand and demanding that it be “your faction’s way or the highway” will not bring you victory. It will, however, bring you frustration, anger, and defeat. That’s all I’m saying.
I warned y’all that the “Karl Rove” brand of politics was not going to work anymore because the American people wised up to it. Sure you can win a few elections by dividing people and turning out your base. But eventually people grow weary of the politics of division and demonization.
It’s appropriate that CNN, etc. cover the Republican in-fighting. They certainly covered the Democratic in-fighting. I remember in 2000 and 2004 when the news media covered the losing Democrats and wondered if they could ever get their act together and win another election. Karl Rove was crowing about how he had found the magical formula for installing a permanent Republican majority. My, my, my – how things change
But take heart – there is a way forward if you’re willing to take it.
Report comment to moderator
A clip from CNN in which Palin defends herself; note she calls her anonymous accusers unprofessional and then calls them jerks. Also she seems confused about Africa, now she thinks its both a continent and country.
Now Palin is not responsible for McCain’s defeat. He seemed to be heading in that direction before he selected her. She did generate some enthusiasm for the ticket and energized the base. The momentum could’ve carried them to victory but two things happened — the Katie Couric interview and McCain’s response to the economic problems.
And the fun still hasn’t stopped on Late Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es7wpmdvXOk
Why doesn’t anybody ever call liberals (like Obama) “far-left”? He was much, much, much, much farther left than McCain was right.
The American mainstream political spectrum is fairly narrow. Both Obama and McCain are right of center with Obama closer to the center.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Mind you, if you and others continue to insist Obama is a left wing radical intent on the redistribution of wealth, I wold remind that 52% of America agree with him and thus he should govern further on the left.
Report comment to moderator
“note she calls her anonymous accusers unprofessional and then calls them jerks”
Hey, I had a bunch of girls calling me a jerk for telling the truth yesterday
“Also she seems confused about Africa, now she thinks its both a continent and country.”
Like I said: we are very lucky Palin-McCain lost. Scary to think what could have been.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t argue with the assertion that the Palin choice backfired. She proved to be exactly the person we expected her to be. The McCain advisors had to know that she would make centrist Republicans run straight into Obama’s arms. They hoped, however, that she would energize a sufficient number of evangelicals to offset the loss of centrist Republicans.
In an ironic sense, Palin was too successful. She energized evangelicals to a greater degree than anyone ever expected. At the same time, she offended centrist Republicans more than anyone ever expected. In the end, an ultra-energized far-right base could not offset the resulting loss of centrists.
That explains McCain’s Indiana loss. In McCain still did reasonably well in counties where a significant number of Republicans are social conservatives (e.g., Hancock county just east of Indianapolis). But in places where few Republicans are social conservatives (e.g., Indianapolis), McCain was hammered. Indianapolis has more registered Republicans than Democrats, yet Obama secured nearly 2/3 of the vote in Indiana’s capital city. Thus, Obama won Indiana because about 40% of Indianapolis Republicans voted for him over their Party’s ticket.
I’d guess that Palin caused this. That’s why this moderate Republican voted for Obama.
Report comment to moderator
RPN wrote; “It’s sad that McCain picked such a woefully unprepared candidate, and put the nation at great risk should he have won. Thank the Lord that did not happen.”
Instead, America picked a woefully inexperienced candidate (far less experienced than Sarah Palin) and put the nation at great risk in dicy times. But we can trust the Lord nevertheless.
Report comment to moderator
#12
Well, at least Anlir’s memory isn’t as bad as Musing’s.
I don’t necessarily agree with him on all his points, but I am pleased that he DOES remember, that the Democrats already went through this in the last 8 years at least as bad.
Does anyone really like the Neocons? I can’t think of anyone.
Social Conservatives — many of them — would have stuck with the Democratic party if it hadn’t cold shouldered them and gone for a platform that completely shut them out.
I don’t think social Conservatism caused a problem.
Seriously, McCain was TOO non-Conservative. Bush wasn’t politically conservative enough, and — honestly — he didn’t do much for the social conservatives either. He may have BELIEVED the right way, but he really didn’t do much.
You do have to be partisan to win. So I don’t agree with Anlir there. I guess you just have to pick which issues to be partisan with. Some issues will get you kicked in the butt. Others will work for you.
If the economic meltdown hadn’t happened, McCain would have won (so the polls tell us). So, if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t be crowing too loudly (Anlir, hasn’t, btw, so let’s give him a little credit here. Musing and RPN, on the other hand….) And, the fact that we COULD have won had the economy not tanked tells us that we’re not completely out-done here…not at all. But, had the Republicans in office behaved like real conservatives, then maybe the economy wouldn’t have tanked.
Or maybe…well, the economists will analyze it to death, and we probably won’t really know until we’re a bit away from it all.
Report comment to moderator
Again, I point out, the polls showed that Palin did exactly what the McCain campaign wanted her to do. They had taken the lead…significantly…until the economy tanked.
The polls all show this.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN wrote; “I can’t argue with the assertion that the Palin choice backfired.”
You couldn’t argue very well for that assertion either.
EVAN, there is zero evidence that Palin made centrist Republicans run straight into Obama’s arms. That’s ridiculous. McCain himself is the ideal candidate for so-called “centrist Republicans.” If a “centrist Republican” could not vote for McCain, then there is no one on earth they’ll find who fits their bill better.
Clue: McCain was the top of the ticket. Palin only offended partisan leftists (and there are a lot of those these days).
McCain lost because he is a “centrist Republican.”
Report comment to moderator
There was indeed a GOP melt-down and failure.
Solution–listen only to the deceiving gloating media “experts” and leftist ideologes and the Obamunists for advice on how the GOP can fix the poroblem…
…NOT!!!
Report comment to moderator
Obama was an extremely partisan Democrat and McCain was a “centrist” Republican.
Which one won?
Only partisans, left or right, win with the American electorate. All the rhetoric about disliking partisanship is mostly disingenuous. Americans like those who take a side and don’t try too hard to play the middle.
Report comment to moderator
The thing Republicans seem to be forgetting is that there is a huge “independent” body of Americans who swing back and forth in these elections. You need them to win. They may be registered as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, but they vote based on the person and the circumstances. They are not slaves to either party. The bottom line is that Obama captured them and McCain didn’t.
It’s the considered opinion of many folks that the choice of Sarah Palin cost McCain the election. She was too “mavericky” for people (and frankly, not qualified in most American’s opinion). McCain made a rash decision in picking her, which instead of showing him to be a “maverick”, showed him to be of unsteady judgment. Obviously there were other things that cost him the election. But many folks believe that if he had chosen someone like Lieberman he could have put together a winning ticket.
I know that the conventional wisdom among the far-right is to blame this loss on the media. But I really think people know in their gut what they think about a candidate, and they just weren’t comfortable with Palin. Yes, people like a “populist”, but they like one who is knowledgeable and knows how to deal with the media. It was just a bridge too far for people to put her in such an important job.
I liked McCain at one time and would have even considered voting for him, depending on whom he chose for his running mate. Even a year ago I was favorably disposed to him and would have not been upset if he was elected over a Democrat. But then he shed his “maverick” image, became a slave to the far-right of the party, and adopted the “Karl Rove” brand of campaigning. In the end he proved to be too unsteady and mean for me (and apparently for a lot of Americans).
Report comment to moderator
Joel’s analysis is totally off base.
Obama won by appealing to the “middle” of the American populace. He did not run as a classic liberal Democrat or a partisan politician. I know the far-right is convinced that he’s a died-in-the-wool liberal. (Some of the crazies are even calling him a “Socialist” or a “Communist”).
But if you listen carefully to what he actually says, he’s a moderate-liberal. His answers are cautious and tempered with reality (as opposed to ideology). I think both the far-left and the far-right will be disappointed in how he governs. If anything, he’s in favor of what works, no matter where the idea comes from.
But seriously, it wasn’t his party affiliation or his policy prescriptions that won him the election. It was his ability to connect with people and inspire them. He’s very much like Reagan in that way.
But enough about Obama. This thread is supposed to be about Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I can’t agree. I fact, the latter portion of my previous post cites Indiana voting numbers that support the argument. Moreover, I work with wealthy Republicans every day, and grew up in a Rockefeller Republican family. Most folks in my social network are Republicans. Guess what? Nearly all of my friends, co-workers, and family voted for Obama. And we all have one reason: Palin and her uppity band of social populists.
MCain may have been at the top of the ticket. Nevertheless, Palin was the more visible part of the ticket.
You also miss the point that genteel Republicans care as much about social standing as marginal tax rates. We will certainly pay higher taxes under Obama. But we can rest assured that we played no role in electing a VP who thought that Africa was a country and couldn’t recite the three signatories to NAFTA.
Report comment to moderator
KRM,
Sara may not have been the most experienced choose he could make, but she was Second on the ticket.
BO has less experience and he is going to be president!
What do you say about that?
Report comment to moderator
Lest we fool ourselves and think we have made something happen or not happen, remember in the WORD, it is very, very clear Who it is Who promotes. Keep the faith. Revival is coming.
Report comment to moderator
TRS- 18
I hate to break it to you, but Palin’s numbers were tanking well before the financial meltdown….
A=Approve
D=Disapprove
NO=No Opinion
Net=Difference between A and D
DATE A – D – NO – Net
9/11: 52 35 13 +17
9/12: 51 37 12 +14
9/13: 49 40 11 +9
9/14: 47 42 11 +5
9/15: 47 43 10 +4
9/16: 45 44 11 +1
9/17: 44 45 11 -1
9/18: 42 46 11 -4
That’s a net loss of 21 over one week….
There are links to several polling sources showing the same trend here….
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I’m “seasoned” enough to know that what goes around comes around in politics. If Obama and the Democratic congress don’t perform, they’re gonna get punished in 2 years and 4 years. (Congress is already pretty much in the “pokey” with the American people anyhow). People always blame the ones that are running the show, fairly or not.
Whenever a new party takes over, there’s always this huge beginning, followed by the “Great Letdown”. And then the other party gets to gloat and say “See, we told you!”. And then the American electorate will weigh in in the next election.
…And the wheel keeps turning.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN-
Thanks for your most thoughtful input. It’s welcome around here.
Report comment to moderator
RPN,
I’m not talking about Palin by herself. (You and other people like you, along with the media, helped to bring her down to Earth a bit.)
But, according to what I’ve been reading on lots of sites (not Conservative) McCain was projected to win until the economy tanked.
And, that was with all his many faults, and all the many other reasons that people had to go against the Republicans. The economy does appear to have sunk his chances.
Report comment to moderator
If anything, he’s in favor of what works, no matter where the idea comes from.
******This would make me very happy, if true.
Report comment to moderator
They are not slaves to either party. The bottom line is that Obama captured them and McCain didn’t.
******I agree with this.
Obama was very appealing. He is young. He is smart. Our allies like him. He appears to be a good family man. He seems to approach things with a calm head.
And, so I have argued. If I didn’t pay any attention to the issues (or only a little attention) then *I* would have voted for him. As a person, he ran a much more appealing campaign than McCain did.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd- “BO has less experience and he is going to be president! What do you say about that?”
An extremely thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, thinker with knowledge about the world and different religions, the humility to ask questions before acting, and the commitment to earn a doctorate and teach constitutional law.
Or someone who thinks seeing Russia is foreign policy experience and Africa is a country, was blessed by a witch chaser, has unresolved ethics scandals, went hog wild buying clothes with the RNC credit cards, charges the tax payers for staying home from work, thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, winks at us in a serious debate, spent 6 years in 5 different colleges to earn a journalism degree, thinks rape victims shoudl be forced to have rapist’s and child abusers babies, can’t name a single newspaper she reads, answers direct questions with jibberish, and necessitated the RNC sending a lawyer to get their clothes back?
Sounds like we made a great choice!!!
God Bless President-elect Obama!
Report comment to moderator
In other words, unlike Musings “the whole American people have changed where they stand,” I think that many, many people simply voted for the most appealing candidate.
My mother chose not to vote for Obama, even though she’s a Democrat. She and my dad voted for McCain, after being life-long Democrats. But, they are Conservative Democrats, and Obama’s policies drove them nuts.
But, even my mom said, “Why couldn’t the Republican party have picked someone younger whose neck didn’t look like a turkey’s?”
She and I both know this is shallow, but look at who people are today…Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton — we’re far more into celebrities and their lives than into issues.
Of course, there were lots of people who did vote on the issues, but I truly believe that a lot of people voted for Obama because he was more appealing. That’s that “swing” crowd, some of the ethnic crowd, and those who think that young is somehow better.
Then you take a Republican party where many Christians voted third party rather than “hold their nose,” a tanking economy, people tired of a war and tired of the “reigning party” after 8 years, and you get a 53% swing to the Democrats.
It’s easy enough to see. We don’t have to go on about people changing their heart values, or America swinging Left. We just have to look at people and at circumstances.
If the Republicans can field a good-looking, charismatic guy next time, and the Democrats don’t do a really excellent job, then we’ll see it swing Republican once again in 2 – 4 or 8 years.
No more old men. No more “dough-faced” white boys. And we’ll see a swing in the middle votes.
This doesn’t mean that I don’t take Anlir seriously and people like him. Or people like me seriously. But there are an awful lot in the middle that swing with a pretty face, their pocketbook, and what they ate for lunch.
Report comment to moderator
#33
As usually…a bunch of swill and half truths. The honorable thing to do would be to retract half of what you wrote and stop posting the drivel. But, on you go, and on, and on. Do you wonder why regular posters finally go nuts??
Report comment to moderator
But seriously, it wasn’t his party affiliation or his policy prescriptions that won him the election. It was his ability to connect with people and inspire them. He’s very much like Reagan in that way.
******Exactly. (I hadn’t read this yet.)
Report comment to moderator
Palin scared the bejeebers out of tens of millions of Americans in both parties. And they held McCain accountable for trying to foist her off on them as being qualified.
Even today she did nothing but blame the media for a)reporting that her own campaign’s aides had called her all kinds of names, b)reporting that the RNC is investigating her wardrobe malfunction and c)existing.
She hasn’t a clue. And America found that out.
Incidentally, the utter hypocrisy that characterizes CCR involvement in politics is best illustrated by the complete aplomb with which they greeted the news that her unwed daughter was pregnant by a punk rock tattooed sluggard. I can only imagine the howls and 24/7 barrage of sanctimony and pseudo-socio-political analysis which would have greeted the news that one of Obama’s kids, had they been older, was in the same sad condition.
Rather interestingly and, I thought, courageously, one of the WMB bloggers followed that revelation up with some pretty uncomfortable numbers about CCR kids’ sexual activity. But nobody much wanted to engage that topic.
Don’t look now, but that is the generation that voted most heavily Democratic.
Report comment to moderator
RPN
BO thinks when Russia invades a country, that county should show restraint.
If someone invades America, should we show restraint to them?
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd-
You must have missed the results of the investigation released this week. Georgia was the aggressor, not Russia….. I can dig for it if you like.
Report comment to moderator
I can only imagine the howls and 24/7 barrage of sanctimony and pseudo-socio-political analysis which would have greeted the news that one of Obama’s kids, had they been older, was in the same sad condition.
******Probably from the usual suspects.
Yet, this blog is chock full of other people, other Christians, who do not behave this way. There are lots of us.
Yet, you and Anlir, both get carried away telling us that we are ALL at the extreme. It gets tiring.
Should I start posting about the “flaming homosexuals” and how they behave and paint the two of you in with that crowd?
I doubt that either you or Anlir fit with that crowd, and I don’t fit (nor does Kim, or Karen, or Pauline, or Make It Man, or many others) into your little box you’d like to put us in.
Just because some yell louder (or dress more outlandishly and put on affectations), doesn’t mean they speak for everyone.
As for Palin, I don’t honestly *know* what I think about her. I was so terribly upset with RPN’s concerted attacks on her, and the poor way the media treated her, that I didn’t have time to really learn any TRUTH about her. I still don’t know much.
She makes me uneasy. Certainly not because of her religion, since I grew up sharing the same one. I think it is even crass to mention it, unless it specifically has caused her to do something endangering to America…and it hasn’t.
The clothing has been explained. It may say bad things about some in the Republican party (as if the Democrats don’t have their own problems in this area!), but I don’t see a real problem with it. I rather wonder why clothing doesn’t come under fair use, since posters, commercials and other “showy” but little substance things do. If a poster or a candidate needs an update…so what?
I doubt that the “Africa as a country” has much more merit than Obama’s “57 states” remark.
I don’t know much about NAFTA myself (although I could have guessed), and I happen to be quite intelligent.
I do think that she was likely not ready to come out and play in the really big crowd yet. And, I do think that the McCain campaign would like to make her a scapegoat, and that’s not fair.
I doubt she’d be ready to run in 2012, but she might make a good senator then…or not. I just don’t know the REAL Sarah Palin.
Obviously, she’s a lot better than RPN paints her, because 80% of Alaskans like (or liked…who knows now) her. That’s an amazing approval rating. I’d bet its unmatched in most other states.
But, did she perform well overall? No. She didn’t. But, there were a lot of things that could have caused that: too much handling, not enough handling, too little time (she should likely have been “groomed” for a much longer period of time), and such.
I’d like to know more about Sarah…sans political snarkiness before I made a decision about her.
I honestly didn’t even think about her when I voted. I voted for McCain, and not particularly because I liked him, although I greatly respect his war record. I didn’t agree with Obama on the issues.
There. How’s that for a straight up honest post? Hopefully, I can get some straight up, thoughtful answers in response.
I’ve seen Anlir do it. I’ve seen Arcadia do it. I know CoyoteBlue can do it.
Let’s see who else.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd-
Sometimes I wonder where you guys get your “news”
Report: Georgia May Have Sparked War With Russia
and
Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question
And you of course DO know John McCain had Georgia’s lobbyist on his staff, right. Think about it….
Report comment to moderator
RPN,
No, I was out hunting and didn’t here anything about Georgia being the agressor, But BO didn’t know that when he called for Georgia’s restraint. All the world saw was Russia’s tanks attacking Georgia.
I pray BO is a good President and doesn’t do have the things he promised. AS Europe is moving Right (because Left hasn’t worked well) The Dems want to take us where Europe is leaving.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd-
Hope you were successful on the hunt!
At the time of the invasion the reports were conflicting, if you will recall, and Obama called for restraint from everyone involved. I also recall hearing the reports that Georgia was the aggressor. Maybe you do too?
I much prefer Obama’s approach of not rushing in with threats and bluster, as opposed to McCain’s rash rush to accuse Russia and suggest war with them. With McCain’s connection through his lobbyist to Georgia, and the rhetoric about it being “A Christian Nation,” I still wonder about this whole incident with suspicion, especially now we know what we know.
Not to derail the thread, but what were you hunting? Deer or Elk?
Report comment to moderator
Back to Sara,
She was well vetted by the Media.
Why didn’t we get the same about BO?
We still don’t know much about him. Just little slips revealed things about him. He wouldn’t even give press conf. during the campain, and the debate formats were useless.
Report comment to moderator
We were hunting elk. It was my first big games hunt. We didn’t see anything but fun was had by all. Colorado back country is beautiful.
Report comment to moderator
Barack Obama has been vetted by the media over a two-year period. And actually the coverage started with his speech 4 years ago at the Convention.
Sarah Palin was only vetted for about 10 weeks. Naturally, hers was more intense since time was of the essence. Don’t blame it on the media that she was judged insufficiently ready by the American people. You can’t “spring” a candidate on the American people 2 months before the national election and expect them to be prepared to make such a profound choice.
Report comment to moderator
At the time of the invasion the reports were conflicting, if you will recall, and Obama called for restraint from everyone involved. I also recall hearing the reports that Georgia was the aggressor. Maybe you do too.
Well, he may not, but I do. In fact, I remember posting about it here on WMB.
And I guess all the “conservatives” on here have conveniently forgotten when FOX had the live interview with the teenage girl from Ossetia and her aunt. She was right there eating in a restaurant when it happened, and she was supposed to talk about how horrible Russia is. But soon after the interview begin, it became obvious that someone from FOX had forgotten to give them a copy of the script, and they started talking about how grateful they were for Russia coming to rescue them from the attacks by Georgia, and how they would’ve all been killed if not for Putin.
Shepard Smith quickly cut them off and went to a commercial.
Report comment to moderator
BO was not vetted by the media, they were part of his campain!
Chris Mathews said is was part of his job to elect BO.
Report comment to moderator
“Indeed, Sarah did energize the far-right of the party. Fortunately the rest of America said “no thanks”.”
Actually, I wonder how well McCain would have done if he had been less of a bipartisan candidate? That’s the whole reason I wasn’t excited about him. So when Palin came on board, I suddenly had more reason to vote for him, and it wasn’t so much that I was voting against Obama.
See it makes me shake my head in wonder at the liberals and Democrats when I hear them say stuff like this. It’s as if they don’t remember anything about the efforts of George Bush, McCain, and the rest of the Republicans to reach across the aisle.
All you hear about are how horrible the Republicans have been the past 8 years, and how awfully partisan they’ve been. That’s just sheer horse puckey.
Here’s a quick rundown of issues in which Republicans made efforts to reach across the aisle to the Democrats (for all the good that it did the Republicans). The Democrats just bit them on the hand anyway.
Prescription coverage under Medicare
No Child Left Behind
Campaign Finance Reform
International Aid
AmeriCorps
Ethanol
Iraq War
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_to_get_your_hand_bitten.html
“So please, Republicans, spare me the bi-partisan, reaching out talk. We are putting country first when we stick to traditional Republican themes; that’s why we have them.”
I have to wonder if McCain wouldn’t have won the election if he hadn’t been so bipartisan to begin with. That’s the whole reason we conservatives aren’t happy with him in the first place, and why Democrats voted across party lines in the Primary’s. They figured that McCain would be easy to beat, and tried to engineer our candidate for us.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: The fact that you feel you know so little about Palin speaks volumes. John McCain put you in a position to decide about her, only he also did his level best to prevent you from finding out about her. In fact, she never even did a single press conference. And when she did do the few interviews she granted, she appeared to me to be hopelessly inadequate. Never in my memory has the American public been asked to take a flyer on somebody like her, much less with the oldest candidate as her running mate.
Incidentally, blaming the media is really, really silly in this situation. What were they supposed to do? Sit still and believe everything Palin said about herself? Not pay attention when her own legislature was actively investigating her ethics? Not notice when the RNC leaked info that this “humble hockey mom” was running up a clothing tab, not just for herself but her family, of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Not report that potential President was being prayed over by a real life African witch-doctor, and invoked her god’s name to help build a pipeline? Not investigate the reports that she wanted to ban some books from the public library?
I assume you voted for her, and for the guy who dropped her into our collective laps. Yet you admit that you were not allowed to learn about her, even though for three months she had the biggest megaphone in the world, available 24/7. All she had to do was whistle and every camera in the world was at her beck and call.
The true(r) story about the Palin selection will one day be told. For now, cynic that I am, I believe that McCain knew virtually nothing about her other than the fact that a)she is charming and b)she was an evangelical Christian of one kind or another and therefore would help him win. He owed all of us more than that.
Heck, there are conservative Christian women on this board whom I would vote for long before I considered Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
“Barack Obama has been vetted by the media over a two-year period. And actually the coverage started with his speech 4 years ago at the Convention.”
That’s funny.
I guess that’s why the media folks like Tom Brokaw are covering their fannies now and telling us that they really don’t know who Obama is?
Is that because they didn’t really vet him? Or is it because they don’t want to admit they knew what he was about? Either way, it stinks like old fish.
Report comment to moderator
For starters, talk radio, conservative news organizations, conservative magazines, conservative websites, and Faux News all devoted months and months of covering and investigating Barack Obama. I picked up several conservative magazines that devoted entire issues to Barack Obama and “vetting” him.
And the “legacy” media did their part too, over a longer period of time.
We had thousands of posts just on this site from conservatives discussing every detail of his life. If there was such a “cover-up”, how is that y’all knew so much about him?
No, no. What conservatives are mad about is that they didn’t like what they knew about Barack Obama. (Although in some cases what they “knew” was false or distorted). And they’re even more pissed that the American people, knowing Barack Obama (the good and the bad), judged him sufficiently prepared to be President.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that you feel you know so little about Palin speaks volumes.
*****Partly, though, that is due to all the mis-information that was out there. RPN did his part.
When it is obvious to me that someone is getting a slam job, it is harder to pay attention to what is TRUE about them.
And, honestly, I don’t think most people know much more about Obama. He’s for change. He’s attractive. He’s historic. There you go. He’s for health care. The most many people know.
I’m really not defending Palin. But, what I do know about Obama (issues wise) I don’t like.
But, no one can tell me that many, many people didn’t vote for him just because he spoke well and was attractive and “historic.”
There is no question that the McCain campaign could have done a better job, and that includes with Sarah too.
Report comment to moderator
What I mean is that — when you know someone is being unfairly slammed — you can get defensive of them. When you get defensive, you don’t hear the true things because you’re too busy tuning out the false things.
It actually does more harm to harp on half-truths, because then people dismiss the whole message.
And, yes, Republicans do this too. I get tired of it from both sides.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir #2: I agree that Republicans need to unite the factions. But changing positions on social issues isn’t the answer. The amount of people who call themselves pro-life is roughly equal to those who call themselves pro-choice (around 45%), and even liberal-leaning states like CA still pass traditional-marriage amendments. Furthermore if the Republican party ceases to be pro-life and pro-traditional family, they will lose more than they gain because a third party will form with leaders who are prominent enough to attract attention and draw votes. Social conservatives will abandon the GOP en masse and vote for this third party. It won’t be the Constitution Party unless they lose the protectionism and some other far-out positions and nominate a more experienced candidate than Chuck Baldwin.
Kicking out all “RINOS” isn’t the answer either. There needs to be a place in the party for those like John McCain (83% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union), Norm Coleman (74% if I remember correctly) and other moderates. And elections ARE won by solidifying the base, then reaching out to the center. I think conservatives need to bring out less rhetoric and more ideas. I’ve heard that Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has a health care proposal; this could be one such area.
In the immigration debate, we need to focus on border security and on helping legal immigrants, and not on sending back the 11 million or so illegal immigrants, which is unrealistic. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we accept “amnesty” for illegals, and we need to continue opposition to things like “open borders” with Mexico and driver’s licenses and social security for illegals. The GOP needs to cut into the Democratic Party’s support among Hispanics.
In other issues, we need to push school choice and look for more conservative ideas regarding education. We need to support an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy, as Palin said. We need to get serious about eliminating the deficit. We need to get serious about reforming Social Security. We need to improve government efficiency and eliminate waste. And in all of this, we need to avoid degrading those who disagree, and we need to do a much better job communicating and articulating policy positions and proposals, avoid shallow unconvincing talking points. Democrats cannot be allowed to set the tone with the usual scare tactics about how the GOP favors the wealthy or threatens Social Security.
So-more ideas, better persuasion, a willingness to accept some pragmatic compromise. How’s that for reaching out to the center?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
You are right that McCain knew little about Sarah Palin. There were two conservative “power brokers” who knew Sarah and pushed him to put her on the ticket to try and shore up the religious/social conservative movement. One of them was Bill Kristol. I forget who the other one was. She met with them in Alaska some time back, and they started talking her up to the Party. Her selection was coordinated and planned, though not by McCain.
*****
Make it Man,
I hate to tell you this, but I think you’re just flat-out wrong on the need for a more partisan Republican candidate. I realize that you are a die-hard religious conservative and you naturally want a candidate that reflects your views. But those aren’t the views of the majority of the American people. You need a candidate who appeals to the great “middle” of the American electorate if you want to get elected President.
Look, I want a die-hard left-wing Democratic candidate. My first choice was Dennis Kucinich. But I recognize that no die-hard left-wing candidate is gonna win the general election. So I have to bite my tongue and take the lesser of evils. That’s the way the game of politics is played.
Barack Obama played it straight down the middle. That’s one of the reasons he won.
Report comment to moderator
“I hate to tell you this, but I think you’re just flat-out wrong on the need for a more partisan Republican candidate.”
No you don’t.
Well then tell me this, why were the conservatives so un-excited about McCain at the outset?
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y.,
You’re on the right track. It’s a matter of emphasis. Again, I’d suggest taking a page from the conservatives in England. Instead of harping on abortion, they emphasize reducing the need for it. Instead of being anti-gay, they supported “civil marriage” and exempted the church from having to engage in it. Instead of being hard-nosed “Thatcherites”, they’ve listened to working people and proposed real solutions to their problems. They’ve put on a much more moderate social face reduced the harsh politics. And now they’re doing much better in the polls. Most observers think they will return to power soon. They were nearly given up for dead at one point during Tony Blair’s reign. But they went to work and re-made their party.
I realize my message won’t be popular with the religious/social conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
And if it’s true that the candidate needs to reach toward the center why didn’t McCain win the election? He is a patently bipartisan candidate… Certainly more so that Obama is… Mark my words, there’ll be no compromises from the Democrats. Certainly not as many as there were from the Republicans in the last 8 years.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
Boy you nailed it right on the head for me. It irks me so bad that the media and RPN piled on Sarah, that I am not about to listen to any more attacks on her. Who can tell the truth about her at this point with all the distortions and outright lies, and savage, and egregiously vicious attacks?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir: You thought Obama was “the lesser of evils”? Why do people think the only “good” candidate is the one who agrees with me almost perfectly? Personally, I thought McCain wasn’t “excellent”, ideologically, but he was simply farther down the “good” scale. I thought Obama was on the “bad” scale.
I guess my definition of “good” is wider than others’.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #57
Well then tell me this, why were the conservatives so un-excited about McCain at the outset?
Because they had unrealistic expectations. You have to be practical and take the best candidate you can get, even if he or she isn’t “right” on all the issues.
I know you’re not going to like this, but the religious/social conservatives high-water mark of political power and influence was during Bush’s first term in office. For a variety of reasons, that power and influence has been lessened.
America has changed from the 1980’s when groups like the “Moral Majority” and the “Christian Coalition” held political sway. People are not as conservative as all that any more. Sure, Americans lean conservative, but they’re practical. For example, they don’t like abortion, but they don’t want to outlaw it.
I mean, the religious/social conservatives can keep insisting that it’s “their way or the highway” when it comes to candidates and the elections. I think they’ll be frustrated and greatly disappointed.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man (and Anlir)-If you argue that Obama didn’t reach out to centrists, evangelicals and Republicans in the campaign, I strongly believe you are wrong. But if you base your assessment on voting records, then yes, McCain has voted more centrist than Obama. “Actions speak louder than words”; so if you define “partisan” by “how un-moderate a candidate’s views are”, then I agree that Obama is more partisan than McCain. But both reached out to the center. Unfortunately, Obama won because he had a great strategy, he was more charismatic, the country was tired of the Republican brand, and the financial sector collapsed.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y.,
Indeed, for me Obama was the “lesser of evils”. But if I have to choose between “no pie” and “a slice of pie”, I’ll take the slice. I don’t expect any candidate will ever meet my expectations – I’m far too liberal. But I’m also practical.
*****
As for the American people not knowing the “real” Sarah Palin, who’s fault is that? Should not the Republican Party and the McCain campaign have done a better job of preparing the American people for her? They should have introduced her a year before the election, not 10 weeks. And if they were gonna “spring” her for surprise effect, they should have been planning and prepping her a long time before hand. The bottom line is the selection was done on-the-fly with no foresight or planning. It backfired.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir: Did you even realize that McCain won nearly all of the centrist (moderate, undecided) votes on Tuesday, or are you simply clueless?
Report comment to moderator
What positions does BO have that is down the middle? Voting to let newborns die on the table?
He is a far left as anyone in Washington!
Report comment to moderator
“The American electorate has handed [Barack Obama] and his fellow Democrats the kind of sweeping victory they haven’t had since at least 1976 and in certain respects since 1964. We’ll now find out if the Democratic Party has learned anything since the last two times it held all the levers of power in Washington. … The economy was by far the dominant issue, and voters held GOP Members who belonged to the party in the White House responsible. There’s some injustice in this, because if anything Democratic policies have prevailed the past two years in Washington. But neither Mr. Bush nor John McCain made that case clearly to voters. The Democratic temptation will be to interpret this victory as a mandate for renewed liberal government. Republicans hope they do. The last three times the Democrats won this kind of victory — in 1964, 1976 and 1992 — they overreached and suffered big losses two years later. … Republicans can console themselves that soon Democrats won’t have George W. Bush to kick around anymore. They’ll now have to take responsibility if the economy stays in recession, or if Iraq turns chaotic again after an abrupt U.S. withdrawal. Americans have entrusted Democrats with what will essentially be unrestrained power, and we’ll soon see if liberals have learned to govern.”
–The Wall Street Journal
Report comment to moderator
#39 RPN
“Lloyd-
You must have missed the results of the investigation released this week. Georgia was the aggressor, not Russia….. I can dig for it if you like.”
Were any Georgian soldiers ever in Russia? There were Russian soldiers in Georgia before the fighting started.
Start digging.
Report comment to moderator
#50 Arcadia
“TRS: The fact that you feel you know so little about Palin speaks volumes.”
We know lots about Biden but he still got elected.
Report comment to moderator
When the financial sector of the US economy collapsed, McCain’s chances of winning evaporated.
Why did the financial sector collapse?
Why did oil prices spike so suddenly and so high?
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd-
Colorado must have been beautiful this time of year. Elk for Thanksgiving would have been nice. I hope your family was not depending on the meat for winter.
Your comment in 48, I believe, may be another misunderstanding on your, or your “news” source’s, part. It’s interesting you heard a misrepresentation of a pundit’s comment, but not the big news about Georgia/Russia.
“Chris Mathews said is was part of his job to elect BO.”
Here is what really happened.
Matthews states, “I want to do everything to make this work, this new presidency to work.”
Scarborough then retorts, “Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist?”
Matthews quickly responds, “Yeah that is my job, my job is to help this country… to make this work successfully because this country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now.”
Report comment to moderator
MiM-
It irks me so bad that the media and RPN piled on Sarah
It irks me that John McCain would stoop to such low, cynical, politically opportunistic depths to manipulate extreme right wing single issue voters to rush to his side, that he would actually leave the USA in the hands of Sarah Palin. This is ambition at its ugliest. What a selfish and arrogant thing to do. I’m sorry, but there is no other way to put it.
There was a time where I felt sorry for her for being snatched out of her nice gig in Alaska to be used this way. I thought she was smart enough to drop out. I was wrong. She kept lying about the bridge to nowhere, and other issues surfaced, and when she could have saved face, she kept pouring on the crap and the winks. I’ll stop, but give us a break on the poor Sarah stuff already. She had no idea what she was getting into at first, but she was willing to milk it for all it was worth.
Report comment to moderator
And if they were gonna “spring” her for surprise effect, they should have been planning and prepping her a long time before hand.
*******I agree. They should have been better prepared. It came off as if she were picked at the last minute out of thin air.
Whether or not that is true, it certainly seemed that way.
Report comment to moderator
Why would we expect McCain to protect/defend a woman?
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 36,
I believe you capture the essence of a point I have been making for a while: Obama, not the Democratic party, won Obama the election.
This however does not refute, no matter how much you might try to refute it, that:
1) the Republican Southern strategy with a coalition of the West has been broken, making Republican and conservatism increasingly a regionalized party
2) the age demographics are against Republicans and concervatives
3) the country actually became center or perhaps center-left as a result of the economic crisis: the majority expect government intervention to fix this
- peculiarly it demonstrates a key aspect of our ecnomy: markets exist because of the will of the government
3) McCain as a center moderate Republican had residual good will which the remaining Republican party lacked: unfortunately the Republican party would not allow him to run as a moderate
4) Sarah Palin indeed energized the base, but she alienated much of the non-base: seee RPN’s Palihn approval numbers
And one can continue.
It is clear to some conservative leaders that rebuilding is required: c.f. Bazell meeting.
As is typical for conservatives after a thumpin, they argue that they must go further right.
I suggest that the conservatives are grossly misreading the electorate, but being a liberal in perspectvie, go for it!
But Palin did not herself cause the loss (although she certainly did not contribute to a win). Palin was rather a symptom of the more basic cause of the loss: McCain had to concede to the Republican party right wing to get their acquiessence to being allowed to run and to use their resources.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 65,
basedf on the following exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
it looks like independents went for Obama 52 – 44 (abot the same as the national averages for th evote ovrall).
What is the source your argument that:
“Did you even realize that McCain won nearly all of the centrist (moderate, undecided) votes on Tuesday”
It does not seem to be supported by the CNN exist polls.
And your reference?
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 70,
perhaps because:
1) the capitalistic credit markets started freezing up and the arbitrage of using short term capital to finance long term debts became untenable?
2) perhaps because speculators in the oil market were able to drive up oil prioces?
Are you seriously arguing that Obama, who has often been argued in WMB as being a socialists, was brought into office by a conspiracy among capitalists?
I actually suggest the alternate: an heroic effort was made to keep these problems under control until the election was over (Bear Sterns could have been the trigger for strong economic response, but the Bush administration dithered) but the problems became so critical that they could not be suppressed until after the election.
Report comment to moderator
TRS
When Palin was first announced I took another hard look at the McCain campaign and delved into research mode. I listened to her debates when she ran for Governor, listened to several of her pre-VP speeches as Governor. I came away from that thinking she would probably do ok. Although, in my own research I found out that she was not being entirely truthful about the bridge to nowhere and though her Administration had negotiated the pipeline deal, I wasn’t sold that the Canadian company she picked was the best choice. My relatives in Alaska noted to me that Palin had been the not Murkowski choice and since there had been such widespread corruption, they were hopeful that Palin could clean it up, hence Palin’s popularity.
Then she started campaigning. I know alot of folks here think the Couric interview was gotcha journalism. I don’t. Palin failed the grade in that interview on multiple levels. Maybe it was the campaign handlers fault, maybe it was her own fault. It’s hard to know that for certain and both sides have their own versions of what went wrong. After that Palin continued to disappoint with her own words. I live in the DC area and can tell you that Virginians I know were offended by the real America comments. I was also offended. I agreed with the analysis of Powell, Buckley, Duberstein, Adelman that Palin was not qualified on the basis of her lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. And while any Governor is going to lack some knowledge in the arena of foreign affairs, I found her answers to be, well, stunningly uninformed. That was not the media doing something to her and she should have known better regardless of the campaign handlers.
I do believe Palin hurt McCain with independent voters and that complaints about the gotcha media, after the Couric interview sounded like excuses.
Maybe Palin can educate herself on foreign policy. Time will tell on that. But it seems to me that she will be digging from a deep whole with the non-conservative parts of the American electorate. I also think she has become a divisive figure within the Republican party. The excoriation of David Frum, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker and others does seem to indicate that there will be a war within the party and does seem to indicate on the part of some a rigid approach which can limit the party, as Tom Davis a retiring republican from Virgina noted, the party is becoming a regional one rather than a national one. The loss of moderates like Gordon Smith and Chris Shays will do as some on this board seem to want, drive the party further right. Not sure that will be a good for the GOP’s prospects, which troubles me as I think there needs to be a vibrant opposition party in any healthy democracy.
Outkast
Where are you getting your data? Every exit poll I’ve seen has the late deciders doing what they normally do in elections, splitting evenly or near evenly.
Report comment to moderator
coyoteblue post 78,
it looks like independents nationwide went 52/44 for Obama, or about the same as the national vote overall.
Outkast’s assertion appears not to be based on data.
Report comment to moderator
Paul Begala said it best last night.
About 50% of Republicans said they hoped Sarah Palin remained as a party leader.
…And 100% of Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
No one has answered the initial question. McCain gave a gracious concession speech. He gracious calmed the crowds who said nasty things about Obama. He refused to air any ads about Rev Wright.
So why won’t Sen. McCain defend his own VP choice?
Contrary to the ridiculous political compass map that HRW provided that shows McCain and nearly every other politician to the far right, McCain is to the left and Obama is as far left as one can go. Of course, Obama’s speeches tried to appeal to the middle as Anlir notes, but that never lined up with his votes which were all on the extreme left.
The point is that McCain is effectively a Democrat right down the line. He probably held his nose and chose Palin as an appeal to the right (who were holding their noses) in order to move himself to the center. Prior to his run for office, his political views actually aligned more closely with Obama than with Palin. McCain-Fiengold was unconstitutional left wing censorship plain and simple. This may be why he has been gracious toward Obama and is snubbing Palin now.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
I think Sen. McCain has defended his VP choice. His staff on the other hand has been leaking like a sieve.
Report comment to moderator
Why did I like Palin?
1. Her view of the world is not situational. She has core values and she sticks to them. Contrast this to virtually all representation in Washington (Ds and Rs) that change what they “believe” depending on the situation.
2. She is not a slick politician…she has a lot of political rough edges. This actually makes her more believable. Contrast this with the career politicians that rarely make a mistake in what they say, but if their mouth is moving, you know they are lying.
3. She is not ridiculously rich. Like me, she might have a clue what it takes to make ends meet. Contrast that to every other candidate that hasn’t had to worry about money for many years.
4. She seems to be working for the people of Alaska, not herself (actually giving them money back from oil revenues). Contrast this to the majority of Congress that will tell their electorate ANYTHING to get elected and then do whatever they want once they get in office. Most roads lead to enriching themselves.
5. Etc.
The bottom line: Gov. Sarah Palin was the candidate that most accurately represented the “average” person. Considering that America is a Republic, it would be nice to have empathetic representatives in our government…we don’t.
Report comment to moderator
As to the turning point in the campaign. Reports on the polling suggest that the shift away from McCain began with the Couric interview of Palin, a few days before the financial collapse. Probably it is the combination of the two that did the real damage: in the Couric interview Palin certainly came across as under-prepared, then the financial storm swept in and with it the realization of how high stakes really were.
There is also a generational shift (or failure to shift) underway here, as well. The themes of the McCain campaign were largely those of a Boomer sensibility: Vietnam hero, Ayers, Black Power/Theology, Socialism (aka Cold War redux), even Celebrity with its level of outraged earnestness so typical of us Boomers. Not only were these tonally wrong for a younger voter, but they made assumptions about the cultural literacy of the voter. Knowing or not, they were a looking backward.
And so then on the final debate, McCain comes off (at least to my eyes) as so old; add Palin’s inexperience; add the backward look — the mantle of Opportunity first picked up by Reagan, and again by GWB slipped away.
Report comment to moderator
MD
It’s perhaps unsurprising that I disagree with you on nearly every point. I expect people who aspire to lead the country to be educated on foreign affairs, in particular. While it would be nice if they understand the struggle to make ends meet, I don’t see having Jane SixPack as a candidate as in and of itself appealing. Maybe it makes me elitist, but I like candidates who understand the powerful in the world. On Palin’s continuation of Alaska’s redistributionist oil revenue policy, I find her position hardly different from other Alaskan governors. Moreover one could argue that the redistributionist policy is a rather larger pander, especially as Alaska rates number 1 in ratio of taking federal dollars to deal with things like infrastructure and schools.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
Did you even realize that McCain won nearly all of the centrist (moderate, undecided) votes on Tuesday,
That’s a remarkable skewing of the center. If McCain won the centrist votes, this would make America a leftist nation. And given its a left of center nation, Obama should govern from the left.
Report comment to moderator
76
Bob
Why did the financial sector collapse? Why did oil prices spike so suddenly and so high?
No conspiracy, just bad economic and foreign policy decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Actually
Bob I should’ve said it was the failure of capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
“On Palin’s continuation of Alaska’s redistributionist oil revenue policy, I find her position hardly different from other Alaskan governors. Moreover one could argue that the redistributionist policy is a rather larger pander, especially as Alaska rates number 1 in ratio of taking federal dollars to deal with things like infrastructure and schools.”
One wonders what other states do with their revenues from such resources?
I also wonder how much the “native minority” population has to do with being the number 1 federal beneficiary? I’ve seen first hand evidence of your Federal dollars at work to help those of native origin.
There are also a lot of remote areas that are extremely difficult to get to, and it could be that a state that is more than twice the size of Texas but much less heavily populated needs a bit more help…
Although that doesn’t make much sense if there are oil revenues available….
Report comment to moderator
I find it disconcerting that the majority of our representatives in Washington have no clue what it is like to be “me.” Perhaps that makes me an idiot…so be it.
Does President Elect Obama know everything about everything? Probably not. A good leader knows how to hire the best and the brightest to advise them so they can make an informed decision that benefits their company or country.
Regarding the use of Federal funds in Alaska: Because we have moved away from a country where states have authority to run their own state to a country where the Federal government runs everything, Alaska cannot use it’s vast natural resources to become self-sufficient.
Report comment to moderator
I think our conservative friends fail to understand that there is a difference between being a Senator and running for President in terms of language and policies. Barack Obama as an Illinois senator, represented the area he came from, which is more liberal. He voted and spoke accordingly. As a candidate for President (and now President elect) he had to consider the needs of the country as a whole, and adjust his language and policy prescriptions accordingly. The fears that he will govern from the far-left are greatly overblown. If I were a betting man, I’d say he will govern from the middle, with a slight tilt toward the left.
In regards to Sarah Palin, I realize that conservative Christians were justifiably excited that one of their own was running for the Vice Presidency. They poured a lot of their hopes and dreams into her run. The problem was convincing the majority of their fellow citizens that she was qualified. For various reasons much discussed, that fell short.
Report comment to moderator
#23 ANLIR,
Well, we know one thing for sure that Obama did not lie about. He said he was against gay marriage. Well, since 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage and nearly all of them voted for Obama, you need to quit hating Christians and start hating blacks and democrats so we can call you a white racist like your buddy Nick
Report comment to moderator
RPN,
The financial meltdown happened before Palin was even picked as VP. You just missed it. The smart money was short and in puts since October of 2007 when it became obvious that the financial meltdown was upon us. Even your warren buffet made 4.5 Billion off of financial puts alone over that time frame.
You really have to pay more attention to the facts..
Report comment to moderator
MiM
Most other States do not have the kind of oil revenue that Alaska does. Texas when it had oil wealth endowed its universities.
With respect to the Native population, see ANSCA. There are some fed $ for Alaska natives, but it is nothing like the lower 48 in a state like Arizona, for example which is not tops on the list of federal dollar takers.
Hmm, States like Alaska might need more help than states like Texas. Is that a justification I hear for giving one state more than another state? Isn’t that a little, well, socialist of you?
Post 95, smiley notwithstanding llama, the post is disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
RPn,
We believe you that little itty bitty democratic and capitalist Georgia, who had been warned repeatedly by Russia to stop trying to join NATO or face horrible consequences, invaded Marxist and socialist Russia, destroyed its tiny harmless army, occupied its cities, destroyed its economy, murdered its citizens and then said it would leave after being told to do so by the mighty and always right UN only lie and keep its occupation forces in Russia to subjugate its people and force it to a democratic and capitalistic country.
Here is another example of naive lefties believing anything their Russian masters tell them and then spread the COMMIE PLANMTED rumor like it was fact. They should learn something we learned about their Russian buddies and lefties in general. When you look in their eyes you should see the KGB and learn to pay no attention to what propaganda slop they feed you as swill but watch closely what they do instead if you wnat to know the truth if you are weak minded and easily fooled. Don’t tell me you think the PALESTINIAN, the first of the Islamofascist Terrorists are being occupied by evil Israel too?
Who said the left and Obama and his supporters weren’t part of the Marxist faction again? It is the only possible conclusion. No one could be so stupid or naive to believe Georgia attacked Russia.
Report comment to moderator
Llama
Last observation, except perhaps for Dr. Henry Kissenger and the US government and a whole host of observers who have noted that Georgia fell for being goaded into attacking.
“We have to face the fact that the first shot in Georgia was fired on the Georgian side. Now, Russia reacted in an excessive manner, but we should not make the whole relationship depend on the pictures that you showed. And I would urge the new President, as I am urging this President to explore the possibilities of cooperation and be very sure before we go the route of cutting off WTO and the other international measures for which cooperation with Russia may be very important.” [CNAS, 9/15/08]
Gee I guess in your estimation Dr. Kissinger is stupid or naive.
Report comment to moderator
#46 ANLIR,
Only Republicans get vetted by the mainstream media and you know it. Here are three examples.
We know that Clarence Thomas was the product of Affirmative Action when it came to how and who paid for his very expensive education. Who paid for Obama’s Education. Was he the product of Affirmative Action . It was the most important thing for journalists to know when CT was up for confirmation but it didn’t make any difference for Obama for some reason. The press convicted Thomas in the Anita Hill affair before any facts were known and that it was all a lie but they never reported that facts of the case – they only kept repeating the charges of an insane woman to this day.
The press made no investigations of anything about Obama when they were told about anything that even might be bad about him though. They made mention of the Reverend Wright until it was brought up by Fox News adn they had no choice but their report was that it was a hit piece by Fox News not that Obama was associating with a known Marxist and racist as his most important spiritual mentor he considered as important to him as his white granny. Then they refused to investigate the issue at all about Bill Ayers and hid it as far from public view as they could get it.
We still do not know one iota of Obama’s ideas of how he plans to fix this financial mess even after running for president for 4 years and this issue being hot for the last 6 months. Obama had a press conference yesterday on this crisis and what he was going to do about it. But he didn’t say anything about it at all other than to say he would fix it somehow and that he wanted the lame duck Congress to pass a stimulus bill or he would after elected. Well, the Democrats have controlled congress for two years, he is a senator for heavens sake and the president elect and can do what ever he wants to do right now – what is with the if not I will do it later crud? If he can’t do it now he certainly can’t do it later.
The last stimulus bill was a total failure and they can pass one without the right no problem but he didn’t even tell anyone what this stimulus bill was supposed to be, what is should look like, how it would be structured, include or not include how big it should be etc etc etc. What did the press do after his little speech? They asked him about the kids dog, what books he was reading, what ex presidents he had talked to, asked him where his kids were going to go to school and said nothing when he insulted Nancy Reagan, asked him about fluff and nothing about substance.
This is how it has been since day one and the press refused to do their job even after the Clinton’s begged them to stop their Obama love fest and do fair and balanced investigative reporting like they should and what did they get? The press allowed Obama to call the the Clinton’s racists =- and agreed woith the Obama campaign. It is so bad that Chris Mathews admitted and just said it wasn’t his job to report on Obama or investigate him but to help America feel better about itself or some such nonsense
Your idea that the press vetted Obama is so wrong and implausible, supported by no facts whatsoever, it is beyond belief but all of your thoughts are beyond belief aren’t they? You do not have to wonder why no sane person ever believes anything you say.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, #23,
I did not aver on the question of how Obama ran his campaign (as a ‘partisan’ or a ‘non-partisan’, a ‘leftist’ or a ‘centrist’). i did not opine on the question of who Obama “appealed” to. I simply stated that he is himself a ‘leftist partisan’ and most people knew it.
But I can agree, Anlir, that Obama compromised his core principles a lot to “appeal” to rather ignorant “middle-ground” voters who care only about recent rhetoric and care nothing about the long-standing record.
Obama proves that partisans are far more likely to win elections in America than centrists. No one can claim that Obama is a centrist who has looked at his record and his non-campaign rhetoric or his off-mic remarks.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN, #24, wrote; “I… grew up in a Rockefeller Republican family. Most folks in my social network are Republicans. Guess what? Nearly all of my friends, co-workers, and family voted for Obama.”
That tells us a lot, Evan. I hope conservatives are paying attention to your words.
So, most conservatives have the integrity and balanced attitude that enables them to support a Republican who may not carry all the water they want…
However, the “centrist” Republiocans immediately bolt from the cause and the Party and vote for a radical leftist simply because the SECOND person on the ticket does not measure up to their preferences???
That’s immature and shameful on the part of your friends, in my humble view.
That tells me that we should let the centrists go their own way and never rely on them or listen to them again, unless we want to keep losing.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
You beleived a vicious lie and passed it along as true. There is zero truth to the vicious (McCain team manufactured) rumor that Palin (in your words) “thought that Africa was a country…”
It seems that you are not a fair-minded person, Evan, at least not on this point. Please consider taking a more critically thoughtful stance on what you hear in the media, especially from ananoymous cowardly sources.
Report comment to moderator
I simply stated that he is himself a ‘leftist partisan’ and most people knew it.
no you misstated; he is not a leftist
he “centrist” Republiocans immediately bolt from the cause and the Party and vote for a radical leftist simply
except they didn’t bolt for a leftist but rather a centrist who had displayed a steady and consistent throughout the campaign as opposed to McCain’s erratic and abrupt behaviour.
That tells me that we should let the centrists go their own way and never rely on them or listen to them again, unless we want to keep losing.
As 52% of America voted for a man who was labeled the most liberal senator, a socialist, a redistributor, etc., America is now a left of center country (or has move closer to the center from the right). To send Republican moderates packing will only further reduce the Republicans to an Ozark-Appalachian rump.
There is zero truth to the vicious (McCain team manufactured) rumor that Palin (in your words) “thought that Africa was a country…”
More or less a he said/she said type of think except in her interview with CNN she mentioned “Africa, whether the country or the continent” suggests she is still confused. The link to the youtube video is somewhere up thread.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #98
But I can agree, Anlir, that Obama compromised his core principles a lot to “appeal” to rather ignorant “middle-ground” voters who care only about recent rhetoric and care nothing about the long-standing record.
Of course, I said no such thing and am therefore not in agreement with that statement.
Calling the majority of your fellow citizens “ignorant” is not the way to win them back to the Republican side. You cannot denigrate people into supporting you.
I understand that many conservative Christians have an unquenchable hatred of Barack Obama and will do everything they can to ruin his Presidency. It’s a real shame that they care more about their “Precious” (the Republican Party) than the good of the nation.
Report comment to moderator
The various charges that are being made, such as the charge that Sarah Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent, are ludicrous. Look, imagine that Biden’s gaffes occurred in private, and some unnamed aides later came out saying that Biden didn’t know who was President in 1929, that he thought they had TVs then, that he thought J-O-B-S was three letters, that he was confused as to whether he or Obama was at the head of the ticket, and that he didn’t know that people in wheelchairs couldn’t walk, it would rightly be dismissed as ridiculous.
Notice that those making the charges are cowardly hiding their identities, while Palin’s defenders are fully willing to do so on record.
Following is the explanation from someone in the know:
Steve Biegun speaks out
He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country.
On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him “somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness.” He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what’s the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”—her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.
In general, according to Beigun, Palin had a steep learning curve on foreign issues, about what you would expect from a governor. But she has “great instincts and great core values,” and is “an instinctive internationalist.” The stories against her are being “fed by an unnamed source who is allowed by the press to make ad hominem attacks on background.” Biegun, who spent dozens and dozens of hours briefing Palin on these issues, is happy to defend her, on the record, under his own name.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue,
I have no idea who fired the first shot or why any more than you do or Henry Kissinger does. What we do know is that Russia attacked Georgia for no good reason whatsoever which was what they were obviously planning to do since they had their army sitting there ready to go just waiting for their little paln of attack to work and hopin tsome fool in georgia would shpoot at them. If Georgia was goaded into shooting first makes no difference whatsoever.
Folks could say the UN was to blame for putting Russian supposed peacekeeping troops in Georgia against their will in the first place and they would be wrong too since the UN did not attack Georgia any more than the nuts who say the Georgian Army started the war by attacking Russia.
Report comment to moderator
With all the talk in the MSM about the record number of young people (and voters overall) casting ballots this past Tuesday, in reality the same number voted in 2008 that did in 2004, and young people comprised the exact same percentage of the vote.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Of course I didn’t call the majority of our fellow citizens “ignorant,” Anlir. I clearly was referring to those “who care only about recent rhetoric and care nothing about the long-standing record.”
That is ignorant.
I do not regard the Republican Party as “precious” Anlir. I regard it as functional at best and a means by which to participate more effectively in our public and political arena. It often disappoints.
Report comment to moderator
I enjoy watching the Republicans denigrate young people and their vote. As they grow older they’re going to remember that. It will help to keep the Republicans as the minority party. Basically, if you aren’t white, straight, and a conservative or fundamentalist Christian, the Republican Party doesn’t want you.
Report comment to moderator
MattY,
Most of us knew from the very beginning that the vile and despicable supposed stupidity and ignorance or Palin were lies from the beginning. Incredible and unbelievable things like these always are. No one, not even dead, uneducated minority illegal alien lefties buried in prison yards who voted for Obama several times are that stupid much less a governor, college graduate and hockey mom. No decent person would ever leak such a thing if it were true. Palin would have had to be retarded to be so ignorant or stupid.
There are two things going on here. It looks like some republican McCain insiders are trying to blame Palin for his loss by working with naive and easy to fool members of the press who are too lazy to find out the facts. These McCain RINOS will be fighting with the Palin real conservatives for control of the Republican party. I am no McCain fan but OI do know him and know that he will not put up with nonsense. he will find out who is leaking these lies, spreading them and deal with them personally. McCain will reveal whop they are too when he finds out. The folks on the left are just being what they always are liars, sexists and discriminating bigots.
They will all get their just rewards,l look very evil, foolish and stupid in the end. The Lefties who already shot their mouths off already do.
Report comment to moderator
As people grow older and they marry and have families, they are less inclined to hand their money over, so I don’t worry about the young people. We’re beyond the novel idea of having a non-white male as president, sooner or later we’ll pick a woman and a latino, ultimately bringing us to the point where people won’t be fooled by “historic” elections. And we should be encouraged that it was blacks and latinos who were the “conservatives” in California and defeated homosexual marriage.
The Republicans have people like Palin — and make no mistake people like her, and if she keeps at it, at some point the MSM won’t be able to stop her just as they couldn’t stop GWB, though they will always be vicious. The Republicans also have Jindal, and they will bring him up, too. I do not fear for the Republican party.
For those of you losing faith in the Republicans, just take a look at what happened this time in Oklahoma. Now there’s a Republican bastion, and the Dems are reeling. Those who are snarky now — and leftys always are! — will be surprised down the road. They act as if the Republicans won’t regroup and come back with a vengeance before their candidate has even been sworn in. The guy couldn’t get through his first press conference without insulting Nancy Reagan. Once he has a record to criticize –and he will! — many of those who worship him now will turn on him.
I am reminded of the movie “The Queen” — where Elizabeth tells Tony Blair at the end of the movie that it will happen to him, too. It will happen to Obama as well.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir ,
It is the Moochers against Tax payers now and nothing more.
Ignorant, stupid and inexperienced young folks will be conservatives one day if they get off welfare adn don’t do too many drugs adn have too many abortions. If they are not; gay, socialists, Marxists, extremist greens, Jewish, black or illegal alien Hispanics will help them be normal one day too.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Missed the
on the last part
Report comment to moderator
Back on topic;
IT seems the Secret Service is blaming Palin for increasing the number of death threats to Obama. Apparently, there was a sudden spike when she accused him of pallin’ around with terrorists.
From the UK Telegraph
http://tinyurl.com/6saz8t
Report comment to moderator
As people grow older and they marry and have families, they are less inclined to hand their money over, so I don’t worry about the young people.
In terms of fiscal conservatism, people do tend to become more conservative as they grow older. However, the social conservatism important to many here will gradually fade. When gay marriage was debated in Canada, pollsters found a sharp difference of opinion at the age of 40. Under 40 had no problem with the idea and those over 40 were extremely resistant to the idea. One’s political ideology, religion etc did not matter it was age. Both young conservatives and young liberal supported gay marriage and as they grow older they may become fiscal conservatives but their social attitudes will not change. Thus for the Republican party to have mass appeal it will need to drop social conservatism unless it wished to be reduced to an Ozark-Appalachia rump.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: IT seems the Secret Service is blaming Palin for increasing the number of death threats to Obama. Apparently, there was a sudden spike when she accused him of pallin’ around with terrorists.
I’m sure Outakst will find that worthy of a “whoo-hoo.”
Report comment to moderator
Outsassed – you really can’t be as misinformed as you appear to be in 65 and 105, can you?
Outsassed: “Did you even realize that McCain won nearly all of the centrist (moderate, undecided) votes on Tuesday, or are you simply clueless?”
The Pew Research Center says you are wrong: Obama got 60% of moderates, and 52% of Independents. Inside Obama’s Sweeping Victory
Outsassed: “With all the talk in the MSM about the record number of young people (and voters overall) casting ballots this past Tuesday, in reality the same number voted in 2008 that did in 2004, and young people comprised the exact same percentage of the vote.”
The same Pew study shows 66% of 18-29 year olds voted for Obama, a 12% increase over Kerry’s percentage in 2004. And the non-partisan CIRCLE finds Youth Turnout Rate Rises to at Least 52% with 23 Million Voters Under 30, 3.4 Million More Young People Vote than in 2004, Young Voters Account for at Least 60% of Overall Increase, 18% of All Voters Were Young
Report comment to moderator
I think there is definitely “a woman to blame.” In not electing Palin to be VP, it feels like we dodged a bullet. According to what I read yesterday, Republican handlers who were involved in her debate prep have said that she did not know:
* Whether Africa was a country or a continent!
* What countries are party to the NAFTA!
Never mind everything else, if true, that right there is frightening!
No, American voters weighed Palin, and she was found wanting. She was a political lightweight, and will rate an asterisk in the history books.
Report comment to moderator
“No, American voters weighed Palin, and she was found wanting. She was a political lightweight, and will rate an asterisk in the history books.”
YOu would seem like that too if you were asked to repeat the MCCAIN party line day in day out.
She was a good speaker, and delievered her speeches well. If anyone is to blame, its McCain and his campaign for misuing her.
From day 1, Palin energized the base so much that the comparison became not Mccain vs Obama, but Palin vs. Obama. They chose to stifle her instead, and thus lost the election in my opinion.
If your going to take a big risk on a rookie, you gotta be willing to play through her faults instead of stifling her. Itd be like bringing Evan Longoria or Geovany Soto up and having them ride the pine all season.
Report comment to moderator
On one of the Sunday news shows, it was pointed out that when Palin said Africa was a country, it was after a long day of prepping and she was tired. Anyone who had been asked all day who is involved in NAFTA, in CAFTA, will misspeak. We all do it. And the speaker said he was present and that was all it was. There is no difference in what she said than when Obama misstated the number of states we have. So grow up.
What we really have here are disgruntled people who failed and they need someone to blame because they just can’t accept their own part in the failure.
It’s really time for you leftys to stop the whining and all the putdowns, unless you want it pointed out each and every time Obama misspeaks — not that I think the opposition here can keep up that kind of whining to the extent you leftys did and still do. You said you were all about change. Well, where is it? Because quite frankly, if your goal is to pull the country together — and make no mistake about it, it isn’t together — this is not the way to do it.
Report comment to moderator
You shouldn’t have to be prepped while a VP candidate for basic knowledge of world geography or NAFTA members (there’s only three). If you don’t have the prior knowledge don’t accept the nomination.
Report comment to moderator
I think Evan hit the nail on the head way back in #15 above. Palin brought back the conservative vote which had previously been lost, but the centrists bailed on the Republican party. However, the polls didn’t start dropping until the daily barrage of headlines against her and her family hit. The bridge to nowhere, the firing of her relative from the police force, the high end community center, the family pregnancy, blah blah blah
This is what drove away the majority of the centrists. That sway vote is so delicate and the portrayal of her as some type of anti-feminist with no experience and exploitation of her purported failed decisions was just enough to spell defeat for the Republicans in the undecided states.
I have said it before and I will say it again, socially liberal democrats could never win an election in any state without the daily support of the headline writers who only praise liberal ideals and their supporters in the headlines and only criticise and exploit the short comings of socially conservative ideals and their supporters. It’s a cliche to blame the media, but if the sway vote is what decides our elections, then the media is the reason for the season of Obama, even Hillary agrees with us on that one.
Report comment to moderator
The only thing scarier than a president and Vp who may not know it all…such as say Sarah Palin…is a duo who are quite sure that they do know it all and likely do not…
America has been involved in the Middle East before and after Bush….long long before…and that problem will continue until the end of the world….Mccain or Obama…it will go on…and we will be there…and we will be underappreciated for it.
I think the biggest change we will see in the short term is simply which side is griping….
Report comment to moderator
The only thing scarier than a president and Vp who may not know it all…such as say Sarah Palin…is a duo who are quite sure that they do know it all and likely do not…
Of course, you are making a very uneducated smear. A duo that thinks they know it all would surround themselves with “yes-men” like the current administration. Why hear opposing opinions if you know you are right?
It’s been illustrated that Obama likes to hear a number of different viewpoints so he can understand an issue better. Of course, most conservatives seem think that considering options shows that you are weak.
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!