Comments on: Thanks George!

By: Guav

Guav — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:07:55 +0000

Hadn’t thought about it that way, Brad.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:48:43 +0000

I think that’s a reasonable point of view. But I also think Bush displayed little leadership when it came to disciplining Congress.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:39:54 +0000

Just to take a contrarian point of view here, one could argue that Bush held together a fracturing coalition of social and fiscal conservatives for 6 years. The GOP had been losing seats in the Senate and House since 1998. In 2002, the GOP picked up seats and held majorities until 2006, when an un-popular administration coupled with scandalous congressional leadership finally forced that coalition to come undone. Bush didn’t undo the GOP. The GOP un-did itself and has been doing so since the Clinton impeachment.

It’s off to the wilderness for a few years for the GOP. I’d like them to start catering again to fiscal conservatives like myself, who are currently alienated by both parties.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:30:24 +0000

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “We’re all just a bunch of centrists.” or “America is looking for a true conservative.” But you’re right that Americans aren’t ideologues for the most part. I’m starting to think the problem is political parties in general aren’t serving the purpose they have in the past.

By: Guav

Guav — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:04:00 +0000

Wyatt, maybe you didn’t notice, but the American people as a whole are not clamoring for whatever it is you call “true conservatism.”

America is not a nation of ideologues, it’s a nation of centrists (with a bunch of wingnuts on one side and a bunch of moonbats on the other).

By: Wyatt Earp

Wyatt Earp — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:19:36 +0000

Bush hurt, but selecting a RINO like McCain didn’t help, either. IMO, the best thing McCain did this season was pick Palin – a true conservative.

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:13:40 +0000

Paleoconservatism is, thank God, dead as the dodo, and has been since Pearl Harbor. Where were you when Pat the Jew hater last ran for the primary? The closest thing to paleocons are the Blue Dog Democrats in Indiana — oh, and Duncan Hunter. Anti-trade, pro-protectionist, pro-tariff.

Sorry. I forgot the Idiot Tancredo.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:04:04 +0000

Then you have to convince them of that, or build a winning coalition without them. Right now, one can’t be built.

By: travis bickle

travis bickle — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:58:09 +0000

But principled paleoconservatives at the federal level will keep their noses out of state affairs, which would benefit social-religious conservatives more than the neocons ever have or will.

The bible belt needs to understand this or get shoved aside to the wilderness.

By: Guav

Guav — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:53:02 +0000

You betcha Sebastian, I hated what she was and what she represented—a female George W. Bush. Thanks, but no thanks :)

By: Zeron

Zeron — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:22:36 +0000

I don’t disagree about Palin, and I can’t put the blame of this election on her. Heck, Biden is about as misinformed on issues as she was, but he is the VP now. I’m just saying, when reforming the republican coalition, you can’t take the religious right for granted. You will either need to build the coalition without them, or you will need to at least address their concerns. Assuming they will just get out the vote for you isn’t a winning solution.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:20:01 +0000

I will also say this: many of the Palin detractors don’t hate her on the issues. They hate what she is, and what she represents. I think a lot of it isn’t even rational.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:19:00 +0000

She was awfully green on issues, but I think her drag on the ticket is way overstated. She has impressive political talents. I don’t think she’s going away. There’s a place on the national stage for her, if she wants it, but she’s going to have a lot of work to do to overcome her deficits on the issues.

By: Guav

Guav — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:13:50 +0000

You also aren’t going to come of well when you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and have no real grasp of the subject matter—that’s WHY the campaign didn’t let her go around talking to everyone. Face it, outside of a few topics that she’s probably very well-versed on—those directly affecting Alaska, for the most part—she’s simply not all that knowledgeable about the major topics of the day.

By: Zeron

Zeron — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:52:50 +0000

And it isn’t just about having people vote, but also getting them excited and contributing to the campaign. I actually think that McCain campaign was stupid on how they handled Palin. The fact that they didn’t put her on the talk radio circuit and open her up to more off the cuff interviews I think hurt also. When you do only 2 major interview (ABC, CBS) and they are heavily edited, you aren’t going to come off well.

By: Guav

Guav — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:39:44 +0000

Yeah, when McCain picked Palin his numbers went up exponentially—and then plunged and stayed down right after she opened her mouth and unscripted words came out. Once everyone realized that the woman who gave the acceptance speech was a facade hiding another fumbling, incurious fool, they soured on her (and McCain’s judgement in selecting her).

Picking her was a gamble from the start—he knew it—and after that first night I thought it might have been a good one. But it wasn’t, she was a terrible pick and I think that hurt him more than the Fannie/Freddie shit did. She only appealed to a small portion of people who would have voted for McCain anyway when push came to shove—he needed the swing voters and the Palin pick just went after the base.

I agree with Travis Bickle—the GOP needs to return to a principled paleoconservatism.

By: Zeron

Zeron — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:35:47 +0000

If you take them for granted, they WILL stay home. You need to show them how your policies will benefit their cause.

By: travis bickle

travis bickle — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:30:56 +0000

I know more than a few bible-bangers, and they all voted for McCain. Not a single one stayed home yesterday. I also know a lot of center-right people who voted for Obama. These are the ones we need to sway, not the religious conservative base- who I still insist will always take a moderate republican over a progressive candidate no matter what.

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:08 +0000

Hope I didn’t get too ambitious with the HTML:

travis bickle: “But Sebastian, the social conservatives will always vote for a more libertarian-leaning republican over a democrat.”

Sebastian: “That’s not true. They can stay home.”

It appears that’s exactly what they or some variety of conservatives did:

If I’m not smoking something, the big story on the popular vote is not the margin.

2004
Bush 62,040,610

Kerry 59,028,444

2008
Obama62,443,218

McCain 55,386,310

Now I can’t say how many votes are not reported yet, but I tend to doubt it could be more than the 3 million that separate the total vote from 2004.

Where is the turnout factor, the historic election and all the hype – that is still going on on TV this morning. It looks to me like a few folks changed sides and some conservatives sat on their hands.

I concede, I haven’t incorporated 3rd party votes in my analysis, but I don’t see how this isn’t a big story.

By: Zeron

Zeron — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:08:35 +0000

Travis, I know a lot of social conservatives who have stayed home the last two elections. They really don’t mind if the country is taken over by democrats as long as they can say they didn’t help send it that way. You need to push the social issues back to the states and go back to the government being the problem for most things. I would like to see a party that focuses on personal responsibility and bases its policies on that.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:35:04 +0000

That’s not true. They can stay home.

By: travis bickle

travis bickle — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:30:04 +0000

But Sebastian, the social conservatives will always vote for a more libertarian-leaning republican over a democrat. Why not at least try to get some votes from people who might otherwise vote democrat because of their objection to US military intervention and not necessarily for a belief in social welfare programs?

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:47:27 +0000

See here, although I don't think any renegotiation will happen, precisely because McCain lost the election.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:37:12 +0000

ATL is right. I don’t think Palin was the reason McCain lost. He lost because he ran a poor campaign.

By: ATL

ATL — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:33:30 +0000

Jym,

Swing voters weren’t turned off for McCain because of Palin. When McCain picked Palin his numbers went up exponentially. His numbers went down during the Fannie mae and Freddie Mac mess. That is what the poll numbers and data show. In the final days McCain started making some traction again, but his weak approach and his inability to confront Obama and provide solutions on certain key issues (i.e. the economy) led to his demise.

People want candidates that have an agenda and show that they have some type of agenda beyond opposing their candidate. Swing voters were turned off because McCain in the end really offered them nothing that was substantial in an agenda. It’s the same thing that happened with Bush 41 and Carter.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish”- Proverbs 29:18