world

Republicans in tatters, look to regroup

227 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

227 Comments
Login to comment

Wow, this article has been up for 3 and a half hours, but not one of JT's resident Republican pundits has commented yet. I eagerly await your, as always, thoughtful and perceptive analysis of the situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the republicans don't want to sink further into obscurity, I believe they have to move toward the center. The GOP, in my opinion was hi-jacked by neo-conservatives whose opinions are far too radical for the average American to accept and are detrimental to the country as a whole. If I were a GOPer, I would be looking to someone like Olympia Snowe to lead my party, not people like sarah palin or Bobby Jindal.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Coalition of the Willing 5 Years on. Back in 2003 when the Iraq War started, on one hand George W Bush praised the coalition of the willing, with on the other Rummy criticised "old Europe". Meanwhile up on the hill in Washington, Republican legislators were being very conscientious with the issues of the day. Namely, replacing "French Fries" with "Freedom Fries."

Fast forward 5 years and look at the political landscape. In the United States, President Bush, leader of the coalition of the willing, has stuffed up the economy, driven the US national debt through the roof, brought division and paranoia to the country, and taken a major role in destroying the dominance of the GOP. Meanwhile, down in Australia (another member of the coalition), Prime Minister John Howard is out of office, leading his own pary at the last election to one of its greatest defeats (including the loss of his own seat). Across in the UK as well, Tony Blair is but a memory. Moreover, his Labor Party is going to have a rough ride at the next election.

The net result of all this is the administration of President Bush (and the so-called Bush Doctrine) has been a monumental failure of massive proportions. Not only has he destroyed his own party, Bush has destroyed any claim the US had to being a leader of the free world. In 2 months time, Bush will leave the Whitehouse and his legacy (quite rightly) will be condemned to the trash bin of history. He will forever be known as person who was both feared and mocked for his ignorance, and the ignorance of those around him. He will also be remembered as a person whose impact and fundamental lack of leadership helped to severely reduce the credibility of both his own party, and other nation's leaders who joined him in his "coalition of the willing."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After this tremendous beating, anything who still thinks sarah palin has a hope in hell of running on the presidential ticket in 2012 is a fool. The GOP is looking for support and trust after palin helped rip a lot of it away, even AFTER bush took the GOP on a joy-ride it will not recover from for a long time.

Taka is correct, the GOP was hijacked by radicals and led into doing all sorts of terrible things that have ripped the fabric of the USA apart. Also as he said, if they truly want to rebuild they need to move more to center. If not, they can continue as is in ignorance and defeat, and who knows? they might fraction off into two parties (the extreme neocons and the more left-leaning Repubs) in the future. At least it will give Americans more choices in an election!

I'm curious why there are none of the die-hards posting of late.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have to agree that the Repulicans are in bad shape right now. All political party's have to go through these kinds of wrenching adjustments when they lose steam. It happened to the Democrats in 2000 and it will happen again someday in the future. This is a cyclical process that is good for both parties. I for one was very disappointed that Obama won - though all of us had seen it coming for weeks if not months. Democrats earned a healthy victory this season and have consolidated their gains from 2006.

I can pledge to the Liberals here that President-elect Obama will get just as much support and encouragement from Conservatives as they gave President Bush. Of course we will be tempered because the mods will not allow us the same freedom of speech enjoyed by us all while Bush was in office. No more derogatory nicknames like the ones used by the other side are allowed anymore.

Congratulations to the Left for your victory - that's two in a row now.

Moderator: Please refrain from making inflammatory remarks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Wow, this article has been up for 3 and a half hours, but not one of JT's resident Republican pundits has commented yet. I eagerly await your, as always, thoughtful and perceptive analysis of the situation."

Okay I will give it a shot. I don't think this was a great victory of the Democrats over the Republicans, as much as a tremendous victory for Obama. Obama and his wife are an extremely attractive, articulate, intelligent black couple, and Obama and his campaign manager have exceptional organizational talent. If an old white man said exactly the same things as Obama, he would have lost to Hillary in the first place. And if Obama talked on an on about hope and change, and change and hope, and "yes we can" and "yes we can" and was a republican candidate, do you think he would have lost? i think not. I say that not as a person who is in anyway upset that an African American won. On the contrary, I think its great. And lots of people not only African Americans, but people around the world feel the historic significance of it. A significant number of people voted for him without knowing the specifics of his policies and exactly who he is. Most blacks voted with him hoping for his historic win. Their participation rate in the voting and their collective joy should make people realize that this election was more about the person of Obama than policies for some people. (Not all, not half, but significant numbers.) The question for Democrats is this. If Obama gets in a war where the casualties increase daily with no victory in sight, if the economy gets worse, will people be able to criticize or will that be seen as partisan, immature, negative, unpatriotic? Just remember, that Obama has already said that we may not get "there" (not sure where "there" is), in one year or even in one term! So you will have to make sacrifices and be patient. Remember, nobody wanted to make sacrifices and be patient for Bush. In the end, Obama is a charismatic great speaker with superior organizational skills. And that is what makes a great President. You have to sell yourself, your policies, and inspire your people or you are toast. Finally, I thought McCain's congratulatory speech to Obama was great. Very gracious man and patriot. Congratulations to Obama from a conservative. P.S here's a question. If the democratic ticket were Jonathon Edwards and Joe Biden, do you think there would have been such a landslide, republican party would be in tatters today, and would everyone be lecturing them about being more center right? Somehow I don't think so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yasukuni - to answer your last question, yes I do. I think you could have painted a trashcan blue this year in the election and it would have run against any Republican running for president. Obama was attractive to the voters for many reasons, but the main one for many, I feel, is that he is not a Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama beat the Republican machine and McCain. -And he beat the Democrat machine with Hillary at the helm. This is a first for American politics. Not even the popular Teddy Roosevelt could do it.

Both parties are dumbfounded - and scared of the "change". You are entering a new era of politics and people came out to vote their opinion. More people are pre-voting also. I am expecting the next pre-vote rate to be above 50%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The party just simply lost its way,” said Republican Dick Armey, the former House majority leader from Texas. “It was no longer about small government and individual liberties ... and the party became enormously unattractive to the American people.”

That's not wrong. Supporting a totally wrongheaded war that shellacked treasury finances and becoming a party that celebrated anger, divisiveness and hatred sure didn't help either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - "Now our Liberal buddies here on JT have a radical black nationalist as their standard bearer and they will have to defend his tolerance for racists, anti-American radicals, neo-marxism, and coming appeasment for tyrants and dictators."

ha ha! That would be even funnier if you were serious. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can pledge to the Liberals here that President-elect Obama will get just as much support and encouragement from Conservatives as they gave President Bush.

Now you know how we felt when bush was elected. Nobody expected great things from bush - and no one got great things from him. Obama will be a much better President.

Of course we will be tempered because the mods will not allow us the same freedom of speech enjoyed by us all while Bush was in office. No more derogatory nicknames like the ones used by the other side are allowed anymore.

And yet you say:

Now our Liberal buddies here on JT have a radical black nationalist as their standard bearer and they will have to defend his tolerance for racists, anti-American radicals, neo-marxism, and coming appeasment for tyrants and dictators.

Looks like no one is stifling your freedom of expression, not the Mods nor anyone else. How have you been "tempered", Wolfpack?

Ontopically, the Republicans have only themselves to blame for their current chaotic state. The profound damages to the US caused by bush's policies, the unnecessary war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden is still to this moment free and laughing at us and at the atrocities he committed on 9/11/01, McCain's inarguably inexcusable and cavalier choice of sarah palin as his running mate - these are but a few of the horrific blunders that have caused Americans to shun the Republican party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Yasukuni, I didn't expect anyone to take my "thoughtful and perceptive" crack quite so literally. Thanks for that. Anyways, here are my (non-smartass) thoughts on what the Republicans should do to get back on track. One, recognize that the Rove/Limbaugh style Republicanism of exploiting regional and social differences is now dead. Go back to being a truly national party or risk being a regional and irrelevant one. They could start by dropping the "real/pro" America nonsense, all that does is insult potential voters. Two, let your candidate be a candidate and give people in the middle reasons to vote for or against him, instead of just reasons to vote against him. Let him really talk to people, instead of just pulling the day's talking point out of his hat. McCain's biggest strength was that he was John McCain, but they didn't use that. It was just throw things at the wall and see what sticks politics. Three, forget about "energizing the base" (assuming there are any Republicans left who are not part of the "base"). If in 2012, they don't like say Mitt Romney, just say "tough, you can have a Democratic president then". Don't throw them any more bones like Sarah Palin which will drive other voters into the arms of the Democrats. Four, no more economic populism. You are the party of the rich, and that is why some non-rich people vote for you, the aspirational vote. So no more "We are all Joe the Plumber" style nonsense. Nobody wants to be Joe the Plumber, not even Joe the Plumber. And five, the Republicans got killed by the internet in this election. Figure out how to keep the "base" under control, if not completely off the big message boards and news sites. I am not talking about Japan Today here, JT is pretty tame and even (sometimes!) people show a little respect. I mean sites like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. where you would see the most incredible redneck nonsense. Freedom of speech and all is great, but I thought the point was to win the election, not turn people off your party. Seriously, I think the internet is a problem they have to deal with, and quick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like no one is stifling your freedom of expression, not the Mods nor anyone else. How have you been "tempered", Wolfpack?

Well, let's test this out then...

I think that President-elect Hussein Osama is a bad choice for president. He is nothing but a 'Chimp' (word used to describe President Bush on this site for years). Let's see if the same rules apply to both of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - "I think that President-elect Hussein Osama is a bad choice for president."

I presume you supported Bush? Obama hasn't even started his presidency yet adn you are already attacking him?

It's anger like this that destroyed the GOP and I for one won't be sad to see it dissapear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain's inarguably inexcusable and cavalier choice of sarah palin as his running mate

What? Sarah Palin is a good person and a popular governor of an important American state who has been slandered by the media and by the Left. A case can easily be made that she is better equipped to be president than first term senator with no executive experience. This is just an example of what conservatives have endured for the last eight years (really the last 28 years since Reagan was first elected). Palin was accused of being the grandmother of her own disabled child. Her husband was accused of incest with his daughter. Palin was called a bad mother for running for a demanding job - by liberal feminists of all people! The Left considered her a threat and went after her mercilessly - something that if she were a Liberal you would her cries of sexism from the mountain tops.

America will not be united after this election. Obama will get a short honeymoon, and then it's on! After eight years of attacks on an America persident during a war and an election campaign of massive media bias, Conservatives will come back and give Obama just as much as the Left gave Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - I have no problem with you expressing yourself; I have no problem forgiving you for posting angry, bitter, radical statements like your 11:13 AM post.

Post whatever you like; the Mods, not I, will determine what they'll let stay on their board. I also have no problem agreeing with SushiSake 3:

It's anger like this that destroyed the GOP and I for one won't be sad to see it dissapear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can pledge to the Liberals here that President-elect Obama will get just as much support and encouragement from conservatives as they gave president bush.

That said, I'm sure it won't bother you at all to be labeled as a traitor by those who support President-elect Obama, right? After all, as you summed up yourself, what's good for the goose and all that.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well folks, maybe its time to get that third party in.

Have any of you looked back at Ross Perot's predictions and how many of them came to be true? The next president should not only understand government, he/she should be economically sound where as they won't need to depend on "advisers".

wolfpack:

a popular governnor from an important state" How the hell is Alaska important state? A case can easily be made that she is better equipped to be president than first term senator with no executive experience." correct, a case can be made but the media wouldn't let that happen.

Palin was called a bad mother for running for a demanding job - by liberal feminists of all people!" that was ironic, wasn't it?

America will not be united after this election." Never really was as far as I can remember. Granted I am still young, but I can't recall when America was ever united. Conservatives will come back and give Obama just as much as the Left gave Bush." I ask libs what is so great about liberals and hardly ever get a good answer, but I've also asked conservatives the same, and basically get the same answer.

America needed a new direction; away from repub and dem directions. We didn't get that.

So, I hear secessionists have been growing in numbers all over the US..... any thoughts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - "time to get that third party in"

That ain't gonna happen and you know it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi

ha ha! That would be even funnier if you were serious. :-)

Of course I'm serious! If John McCain had attended a racist anti-American church for 20 years, he never would have made it as far as he did - despite the fact that he is a war hero. Wouldn't you be against McCain if her went to a racist church? I know you would. However, the double standard says that Obama can. That's ridiculous and I don't accept it - and will never accept it. Seriously, would you sit in a church for two decades and listen to the crap that Obama took his kids to listen to? Divisive people like Obama's spritual mentor are shunned by everyone who are not still living in the Dark Ages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolpack - "Sarah Palin is a good person."

Maybe so, and that's debatable, but mcain's choice of her was instrumental in his failure to win.

Oh, as was the hiring of the same Bush team that destroyed his 2000 campaign chances.

Choosing Sarah Palin was a ship-sinking decision, not only because it pulled the 'experience' rug out from under mccain's feet, but - let's face it - she is an idiot. Sorry.

Many of us were shocked at Bush's 'command' of his native language, but Palin's problem wasn't just the words, it was the stunning lack of logic behind them in many cases.

Her debate performances were a joke (her performance at the veep debate wasn't bad, TBH), and letting her go on SNL was a mistake, and the way the same show parodied her buried her even further.

I think mccain's choice of her as his VP mate - and note, very significantly, this was his first presidential-level decision - was a total screw-up.

Also, I think this will come out more prominently in further analyses - Obama's campaign really was pushing unity, whereas the GOP/mccain's campaign was consciously focused on employing wedge tactics, pushing division, anger and hatred, and to be honest, I think Americans are just fed up with that.

They've simply had enough.

They wanted hope and they elected the man who offered it.

Game, set and match Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka says:

That said, I'm sure it won't bother you at all to be labeled as a traitor by those who support President-elect Obama, right? After all, as you summed up yourself, what's good for the goose and all that.

I will oppose Obama; but I support my country. I will not oppose my country during a war as Obama and many other Liberals did by trying to cut off the troops funds so that they could no longer fight. I will not declare that they are losers while they are still fighting. I will not attack my own Generals as Hillary (suspend disbelief), MoveOn.org, and many other Liberals did. If Obama had his way, we would have left defeated prior to the gains from the surge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the quaintly eloquent words of Sarge, electing Sarah Palin was the 'biggest brain fart' in GOP history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has already done more to enhance America's reputation around the world, just by getting elected, than Bush has done in eight years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I ask libs what is so great about liberals and hardly ever get a good answer, but I've also asked conservatives the same, and basically get the same answer.

Liberals believe that you are owed a living, Conservatives believe you have to earn one.

The difference in two words.......Wellfare vs Workfare.

I don't what side you fall on but I never really appreciated anything that was handed to me the way I do things that I worked hard to earn on my own.

That is the difference in the philosphy between a Liberal and a Conservative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about "liberals" believe in change and enfranchisement, whereas "conservatives" believe in xenophobia amd disenfranchisement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will oppose Obama; but I support my country.

Contradictory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Christopher Buckley was hardly the only Goldwater Republican to jump ship. Two Political Scientists have identified the immediate and long-term issues the GOP must cope with to regain its competitiveness. It's doing especially poorly amongst young voters, who realize they will get stuck picking up the tab for the "spend and borrow" philosophy which has been evident over the past eight years:

Part of Republicans' difficulties come from widespread dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and its handling of the economy and the war in Iraq. These are retrospective evaluations whose effects will tend to diminish over time. . . . But another cause of Republican troubles appears to be the ideological positioning of the Republican party, particularly on social issues. The positions that appeal to the Republican base are repelling moderates that the party needs to maintain its long-term competitiveness. These voters are not lost to Republicans--yet. Most consider themselves Independent or leaning or weak Republicans, not Democrats. They are not liberals and remain closer, on average, to Republican positions than those espoused by the Democrats. But they are up for grabs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong says:

Have any of you looked back at Ross Perot's predictions and how many of them came to be true?

Yes, I do remember his charts and graphs. I voted for him as did many other conservatives and we got Bill Clinton as a result. Social Security has $53 trillion in liabilities and Medicare and Medicade are also destined for insolvency. You are right, neither party is serious about the country's financial future. The biggest mistake that Bush made was trying to buy off seniors through a government prescription drug program. For that and for imitating Democrats in the spending department, they lost the last two elections.

How the hell is Alaska important state? Well, Alaska is located in an out of the way place, but it is very important for American's national security for a few reasons. If the US is to get anywhere close to energy independence, Alaska will be critically important. Also, Alaska is located in a strategically important location and is critical for the national defense of North America.

I ask libs what is so great about liberals and hardly ever get a good answer, but I've also asked conservatives the same, and basically get the same answer.

Well, whether the answer is good or not depends upon where you are philisophically. If conservatives were hewing closer to their ideals lately it would be easier to answer that question. A lot of Republicans forgot that they were supposed to be the party of small government. They have been more successful in being the party that supports a strong national defense and a foreign policy promoting liberty. The huge debt that we have accummulated since LBJ was president and the failure to reform social security and other entitlements is a disaster for the country. Perots message is even more important today then it was back in 1992. I think the future is bleak because of our domestic spending. The last successful reform of social security was under Reagan, but that turned out to be just a patch. President Bush spent about a full year trying like hell for the Democrat controlled congress to tackle the issue, but they refused. Every dollar that the government takes in taxes is a small part of your freedom that is gone. I am not a Libertarian, but the government is doing way too much as it is without adding national health care as Obama wants to do. That will mean more taxes and more of my personal freedom taken from me. I am not a selfish person; I just want to have the choice of where my money goes. If taxes are not increased, then the mounting debt means that the money that I do earn buys less as our currency loses value. What is so great about Conservatism? You can succeed or fail based on your own efforts and not on choices forced upon you by the government. It means that you can join and freely support private organizations, charities, and causes that are important to you - and not by 50%+1 of your fellow citizens. That way, you can be compassionate to those less fortunate than you on your own terms - and not someone elses. Americans are very generous people, but that generosity will not last in the face of huge amounts of debt and high taxes.

So, I hear secessionists have been growing in numbers all over the US..... any thoughts?

Ahhh... I think that's a nutty idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude says:

Contradictory.

Hardly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Bush spent about a full year trying like hell for the Democrat controlled congress to tackle the issue, but they refused.

You're wrong. GWB attempted to privatize social security immediately after he won reelection in 2004, an election in which the the Republicans increased their hold on Congress.

The problem is he'd never campaigned on the issue so he didn't have a public mandate to proceed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wolfpack: "America will not be united after this election."

It'll take time, and so long as fools who refuse to believe in the president strictly because they have a chip on their shoulder it'll take all the more time, but it'll get there. One thing is for sure, the GOP is not united, nor do I predict it will be before the next election cycle (half pushing for Palin to run, the other half thinking it's a bad idea, etc.).

"Obama will get a short honeymoon, and then it's on!"

Well, I don't know exactly what you think will be 'on', since people like yourself are already blindly lashing out, but I do agree that he will have a VERY short-lived honeymoon before having to look at the outright mess bush and his regime created of the US economy, as well as how bush and co. made a mess of the ME and world in general. Obama has some pretty awesome clean-up tasks ahead of him, and of COURSE people are going to attack him for not magically fixing bush's mistakes immediately.

"After eight years of attacks on an America persident during a war..."

Let me add here, "during wars HE started" and in particular in the case of one, a war which was based on lies, was illegal, and was completely unprovoked.

"...and an election campaign of massive media bias, Conservatives will come back and give Obama just as much as the Left gave Bush."

The media was indeed biased, but that's easy when you have bush and co. in said party with all of their failures and penchance for idiocy, as well as a senator vying to become president and following the exact same policies (well, 90% of the time, anyway, while claiming he is not at all part of his parties policies, and is in fact a maverick).

Palin was slammed for being 'a bad mother' in obvious irony -- she constantly talks about how strongly she adheres to her faith, but we saw complete condradictions to that in her practice. Hence, by saying, 'Oh, she's a bad mother!' people were sarcastically commenting on her hypocrisy. Shame you couldn't see that.

sarge: The GOP could very, very well split apart due to Bush/McCain's fiascoes, and in fact one half would benefit from it and possibly do well in the next election (not the half that stands behind Palin). It's a reality, bub... live with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wolfpack: "I do not support Obama; but I support my country".

Paradoxical statement, and you should be happy the Republicans aren't in; with all their taking of your rights and freedoms, statements like yours might be considered 'unpatriotic', you could be investigated as a potential threat, and perhaps said statement might be considered tantamount to a little word rhyming with 'reason' but starting with a 't'. Fortunately, you have Obama as president, and he stands up for your rights and freedoms rather than saying, as bush and co did, that said things must be sacrificed for 'democracy'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith,

Bush is history could you please get OVER IT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind - we ARE starting to get over it; that's why we elected Barack Hussein Obama President of the United States of America last night.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Oh yes, you're right... how foolish of me to not want to learn from the past instead of sweeping it under the carpet because of embarrassment and pretending it has nothing at all to do with the fracturing of the GOP, which I believe is the topic of the thread.

"By 2006, the country issued a double repudiation of Bush and the party, giving Democrats control of both the House and the Senate."

That's directly from the article, sailwind, and if you like I can cut and paste another dozen or so paragraphs that deal with disenchantment of the party and the American people (and world) due to bush and his policies, if need be, to point out the validation of talking about bush in relation to the thread. Do I need to do that?

Seems the only person who needs to get over a couple of things here is... well, you and a few others who are upset over Obama's loss and are lashing out in bitterness and resentment. We understand and forgive you, of course, but don't stray from the topics because of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

Seems the only person who needs to get over a couple of things here is... well, you and a few others who are upset over Obama's loss and are lashing out in bitterness and resentment. We understand and forgive you, of course, but don't stray from the topics because of it.

Amen, brother!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We understand and forgive you

How Liberal of you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "How Liberal of you."

Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wolfpack says:

I will oppose Obama; but I support my country

Sorry. According to what I have been told here often, supporting your country isn't good enough. At least, it wasn't in my case.

You imply that it's un-patriotic to not fund the troops. I said it was un-patriotic to send them to an unnecessary war in a country that was not an imminent threat to America. Whose support saves more troops lives and limbs?

Also, neo-cons here at JT demanded nothing less than total allegiance to the president. Now you appear to want to have it differently, but then again, THAT is the neo-con way.

Well...as I said before, yesterday was a referendum on neo-conservatism. It was 4 years too late, but, I'll still take it and do so gladly.

As for the traitor thing, don't worry about me calling you that wolfpack. I think only someone of very little mental and moral capacity would throw that word around carelessly. I've been called a traitor by people who I feel know little about the word or about real patriotism and to be honest, it hurt me, deeply.

As for those who made traitor references toward me and others who criticized bush; If you want to disagree with President-elect Obama, do so and do so with my blessing. It is your right. Just remember, if someone else calls you out, you really have no moral leg to stand if/when you choose to whine about it.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think many of you underestimate what a great campaign Obama ran, and his place in history. The Clintons, regardless of their enormous background and stature within the Democratic Party couldn't beat him. Regardless of who McCain picked he would have had trouble beating Obama. Any pair of republicans I saw would have had trouble. Which pair could have beaten Obama? Don't tell me who you like, tell me which Pres and VP pairing would have beaten Obama? The Republican Party has a basic problem that you all know. There are the fiscal conservatives who don't care about social issues, and I don't really think there are that many of them - and even less when the economy tanks. When the economy is terrible, there aren't many people who refuse a tax break and government handouts. Then you have the social conservatives, and they are mainly religious people who will vote consistently on certain issues. Call them what you like, but that's the way it is.

The real irony of this election was the inconsistency of the christian world. Conservative black christians ignored Obama's liberal views and voted him in in order to make history. On the other hand, the Dobson crowd after decades of arguing for the importance of mothers looking after kids did an about face and went for Palin. If Obama's running mate were a woman with five kids including a baby, Dobson and the religious right would have gone beserk and made her anti-family feminism a huge focus of their attacks. Anyway, four years is a long time. If in four years, the economy is great again, America is not in a difficult war, and terrorism is under check, then the republican party is in a terrible position unless they can come up with a super charismatic black woman! But the chances of any President leading the US to bliss in four years is pretty slim, so their prospects will be much better in four years time. And maybe four years will be long enough for Sarah to read some newspapers, and study up on supreme court decisions! But me thinks that in four years, Arnie will become the new hope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and terrorism is under check

Terrorism is already under check as far as America is concerned. There isn't any more terrorism now than there has been for the last 40 years, its just America is paying attention now.

Most of what is happening in the Middle East is not so much terrorism, but par for the course when you have a war zone in the modern world. Unless of course you think dropping a bomb on a wedding from the sky is really all that different than blowing yourself up in a market place. The only big difference I see is having the plane.

So what we have might be classified as insurgency, civil war, and/or resistance long before we allege terrorism. Certainly shooting at foreign troops in your own country cannot be classified as terrorism. (And sorry to anyone who wanted that tied up in a pretty package with a neat bow. You are not getting it.) Americans are not experiencing any more terrorism than they were before. And as much as the Republicans might like to take credit for that, they can also take some credit for the man that presided over 9/11 and passing the hot potato into Iraq to take the heat off Americans, among other things. Iraqi kids died for his sins. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cave..

I think you generalizing way to much to be taken serious.

First of all a terrorist and a military have allot of dfferences that make them known as one or the other..

A military has uniformed personel who have to follow a guideline of rules to try to prevent civilian damage. They also have to uphold a higher standard in the treatment of the enemy. American military doesnt target civilians, it happens that civilians get killed but it isnt the goal, terrorist target civilians as the goal. I know you havent served and you havent been in combat so I forgive your lack of knowledge on such matters, and I also understand your trying to make a political/personal point using this type of talk, but its just correct they way you try to represent it..

Also a majority of the terrorist in Iraq are not Iraqies so the foriegn troops in their country doesnt apply then.

Ask your self this Cave... if in a situation where you could be captured by one group over the other who would you rather be captured by? Remember most terrorist dont take prisoners.... If you had to have one group or the other in your country would you take the ones who try to help or the one who aims for your wife and kids at school or church to kill?

I know the war sucks, I want the troops back too, but Im not going to compare my fellow military guys and gals to the terrorist of the world...I say this as I have said before, go to any American base and tell those men and woman that they are just terrorist and see what happens.... We are doing our job not for ourselves, but for others. It would be a hell of allot easy to kill em all and let god sort them out, but we die trying not to kill the innocent... Hopefully you can someday understand the difference between a terrorist and a military person...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain running mate Sarah Palin has signaled that she will remain on the national political scene.

If Palin is the next face of the Rebpblican party then for sure the Democrats will be in power for a very long time.

The American people gave a clear response to the last 8 years by saying enough is enough.

Now if only the rank and file of the far right will only come a little closer to the center. They may have a change to get some of their old power back. But with the future of the Republicans being Palin I do not see them getting any where near the center.

Hell they may get so desperate that they will swing so far right that they will all move to Alaska and try to form their own nation.

Mom the turkey is cooked

The Republicans lost so badly yesterday that E.Dole lost her seat. If that is not a clear cut hit in the face for the Republicans then I do not know what is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ano....... Here is some funny news. On Fox news they reported that campaign insiders were worried about Sarah Palin too. Among other things, she couldn't name the countries in NAFTA, and,and, thought Africa was a country and South Africa was just the southern part of the country of Africa. With all due respect, it that's true then maybe it's not just McCain's pick, but the US education system??? Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The republicans need to sit down and figure out what they really are and want. Is this what the people of the United States want?

In 2006 the the American people told the country they wanted a change. They wanted the war ended. and the list goes on.

george bush and the republican congressionmen refused to listen to the people. So the people made them listen up.

What's it say, "To the people, By the people, For the people?"

If the republican congressmen had listened; if george bush had listen then maybe the republican might have won the election. But they lost because they said, "Screw you people." < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now you know how we felt when bush was elected. Nobody expected great things from bush - and no one got great things from him. Obama will be a much better President.

I wouldn't get your hopes up too high for Obama. There is the inertia of the system, plus lots of deep-seated problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the US education system???"

Noticed that that was never mentioned during the campaigns... Repubs won't fix it, and Dems thought just throwing money into it, making it bigger with more managers would be the answer.. Nothing is going to fix that Education system except students themselves.

she couldn't name the countries in NAFTA" I don't hve proof, but will bet a lot that not only did she not know which countries are included in NAFTA but 90% current elected officials who were part of its beginning don't even know how many countries are in it.. bets on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AAdaydream,

That's, "Of the people, by the people, for the people" ;-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It’s time for the losing to stop. And my commitment to you is that it will,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio told his rank and file after the party lost at least 19 congressional seats Tuesday—on his watch.

If Boehner really wants to the see the Republican Party stop losing, he should work to ensure that it the party is no longer characterized by unmitigated a-holes.

He also may want to start looking for ways to serve the best interests of ALL Americans, and not just upper-income, white Christian ones. That might be a good start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing is going to fix that Education system except students themselves.

That's something that's simply not going to happen. Quite honestly, I find it bizarre that anyone would suggest that students are responsible for fixing the education system. Students didn't built it. Students don't staff it. Students don't design the curriculum. And Students don't assess success or failure.

Reforming the education system is the responsiblity of the whole of the American people, from the politicians to school administrators, from parents to teachers.

Society either believes in the value of education or it doesn't. And by every indication over the past few election cycles, it's more than apparent that many Americans scorn the well-educated. That simply has to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

Why would someone tell you to stop referring to Bush on a thread with the title "Republicans in tatters, look to regroup" and Bush is the current Republican president. That does not make any sense at all unless you factor in that we are now dealing with people so bitter they will say anything. How quickly they shed the "moderate" garments when they no longer serve any purpose. I remember being called partisan. I never tried to present myself as anything other than who I am. I don't claim to be moderate and claim to be considering the other candidate only to repeat the litany of mistruths the opposing campaign has been spewing for months after my vote was rejected by the majority.

I can't stand Palin. I think she is a doofus. When she does not know an answer she tries to wink and bluff her way out of the question and sometimes just say things that are stupid i.e.: The V.P. is in charge of the senate. I do think she will have a role to play for sometime. She has a large following. If Ted Stevens wins I hope she takes his senate seat. She will be destroyed in the senate. She can't handle the national stage because she does not know the job and she in not very intelligent so her learning curve will have very little rise over a great deal of run. For those of you not familiar with the analogy the 'x' and 'y' coordinates on a graph are what determine the steepness of a curve. I am saying her curve will not be very steep at all because given all the time in the world she will have limited knowledge expansion. Ok I'll say it another way she's a dumbass who spends her time trying to pretend she is not; instead of working harder to learn.

As Taka mentioned Olympia Snowe would be the ultimate direction for the party to follow. She will be relied upon by the Democrats in the senate to build needed coalitions. She will also be the goto person when they are taking a cloture vote. America will not tolerate the NeoCon approach for the majority of Republicans to succeed. I think you will also be seeing the influence of the Moral Majority greatly reduced in the next decade. Look at the South Dakota results: McCain 53% to O's 45% but Abortion Limits 55% no to 45% yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans destroyed America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans destroyed America."

They did not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Palin had no idea Africa was a continent, and the "wall mart" Republicans with their festering trickle economic brew wanted her in the vice presidency. If Palin is all they are pinning their hopes and dreams on for 2012 then they will remain in taters for a long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so bitter they will say anything.

This must be some of that unity talk Obama was talking about in his speech.

she's a dumbass

I think she is a doofus

Nice........Good start on the unity for all of us and getting folks on your side GoodDonkey. By the way I'm not bitter at all. I'm just amazed that people here the past months of this campaign have no problem calling a politician that they don't like doofus and a dumbass. I have always found that offensive. Sarah Palin didn't didn't get to where she is by being a "dumbass" or a "doofus".

This is the "change" we can believe in. Free quarter to see how childish we can get and then present ourselves as having a superior intellect and elite education over the great unwashed masses?

Language they (Man I sure hope we haven't slipped that far down in decency yet) language they would never tolerate at the dinner table in front of their kids.

I may not be an "elite" but I do know my manners. I starting to think maybe that should be taught in our hallowed halls of academia again. It's pretty apparrent that isn't stressed anymore on our campuses.

I'm glad this election is over. I may have gone overboard in my defense of Palin at times but when people sink so low in their attacks that they call people "dumbass" or a "doofus" and actually believe it one has to shake ones head in disbelief and causes a person like me that was raised to respect others viewpoints and does have manners to circle the wagons on that persons defense.

I get to look forward to 4 years of reading Obama supporters in the future on this thread and the way they treat people who disagree with them.......Joy, oh, Joy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everton2- How can you mock us patriots,? aren't we suffering enough?

Look at the vote the precentage of the vote indicated there was no landslide. The only reason the bad guy won, was the backing by akll the TV media except Fox, which was the only impartial network.

We will be back, stronger, more radical and more patriotic. Obama will destrpy our great nation, we shall rebuild and restore faith.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I may not be an "elite" but I do know my manners. I starting to think maybe that should be taught in our hallowed halls of academia again. It's pretty apparrent [apparent] that isn't stressed anymore on our campuses.

I am going to get schooled on manners. Please. This coming from someone who never answered a comment when he was advocating violence because of another persons words. Most "hallowed halls of academia" tend to stress that manners accompanied by threats are a bit more of a faux pah than a few crass words used to describe someone who has proven she did not even know the job of V.P; something I learned in Junior High if not Grammar school.

But Republicans typically reinforce the wrong behavior. While the Republicans were all up in arms about Anti-American rhetoric during the Reagan era the president was allowing Sec. of Interior, James Watt, to devastate our land with strip mining in Federal lands.

Oh and I love how this conversation got started. Someone tried to get Smith not to talk about a crucial issue that directly applies to the topic at hand. "Bush is history could you please get OVER IT" is what was said. I really think the proposition should have been directed at JT or why even comment on a topic if it is simply to tell another poster not to make a pertinent comment to the thread. Republicans; so often they are trying to tell us to shut up when we say things they don't like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems like the Republicans have well and truly destroyed not just their own party but America.

The Bush Administration is now - wait for it - trying to borrow $550 billion to fund part of the bailout package.

Hello even more debt.

The incompetence of the Republican party is astounding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Slash and burn policies were always going to come home to roost in the GOP.

Let's face it, you can only profit from the horrific deaths of 3000 of your own people for so long. The fear and paranoia has abated and most people can see this paticular out-going administration for the filth it really is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushiandsake:

Seems like the Republicans have well and truly destroyed not just their own party but America...Hello even more debt.

the thousands of hours you spent trying in vain to convince sarge notwithstanding, you must feel great today, having voted obama.

but why is it you're not celebrating like most Americans dems that i know...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Dude, just drop the bitterness and move on. A few posts ago your only comment was that bush had nothing to do with this thread, and after reminding you that he is a HUGE part of the destruction of the nation and the GOP (and hence the thread of the latter being in tatters), you simply move to something else to try and nitpick, claiming that Obama supporters are not for unity because we very rightly mock Palin.

Seriously, my friend. Move on. No one is excluding you from the group (Obama supporters), and all are welcome in a united USA (I speak as an observer, not a member); only those who refuse to acknowledge that Obama has won and spend all their time pushing themselves outside are the outsiders. Unity isn't given to you sailwind, you help build it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: 'they did not (in reference to the repubs destroying the US)'.

sarge, bud, they did indeed. What's more, they did their damnest to help make the world a much unsafer place -- though that is mostly thanks to bush and his neocon warhawks at the front (before most resigned in disgrace, of course). Not to worry, though, you can stay on with the current few in the GOP who wish Palin to be the next president, while the new splinter party chooses another running mate. Good riddance, Republican party. The world does NOT mourn your passing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Elizabeth Dole is very smart. I don't agree with her on many things but she is very smart. Christine Todd Whitman is very smart. I don't think either of them are as smart as Joe Biden because he is brilliant. But I could never say who is smarter Joe Biden or Richard Lugar because they are both brilliant and have exceptional minds and vast experience. I have not always agreed with Republican Richard Lugar but I will never say he is a dumbass. I think we may see Sen. Lugar get a nice job from Obama. I have no problem acknowledging intelligent or smart Republicans and that includes smart Republican women. On the other hand I don't have a problem calling the dumb ones out. I want Al Franken to win. He's not all that smart but the jury is still out. But we need his vote to get our legislation passed so I'll take him.

Is this really anything new for me to say good things about Republicans. I don't think so. I am not trying to please anybody. I am just calling them like I see them. Do I get pleasure out of belittling Palin. Hell yes. McCain was a different story. There was a time to fight against him and that time is over. I never stopped calling him a hero even though I now have a more realistic view of his history. There is a Hollywood technique used to stir the viewers emotions with ups and downs that will often initially vilify the protagonist and then redeem that person in the end. I see that process of redemption towards McCain as I have other antagonists in the past whether they be political or otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think either of them are as smart as Joe Biden because he is brilliant.

so brilliant he has to plagiarize others just so he can reach the average joe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tatters old friend, heh, tatters.

8 years of blind support, the economy on the verge of implosion, 2 un-popular and un-winnable wars, bin-Laden still at large, 368 handles later, and the old nemeis is still to be shut out at all costs.

Amazing really. I've always said Denial of this magnitude deserves it's own physciatric appelation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

madverts,

if we could harness the energy from the almost daily handle changes by the rightwing nutter crowd global warming would be solved. It does show a sense of shame about their posts as they try to hide their tracks over and over again. Fools no one, however.

The ones that remain after years of total failure by their leaders are emotionally damaged so much they cannot let go from the sinking ship. Soon there will be no viable republican party, then what will they do. Maybe join Tod Palins Alaska Independence Party. Saw that they ran for some offices on election day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This coming from someone who never answered a comment when he was advocating violence because of another persons words.

Please clarify......I have no clue what you are talking about.

When have I ever advocated violence because of a persons words??????

This a pretty strong and if your going to make this kind of insuation at least provide where I ever did that.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do I get pleasure out of belittling Palin. Hell yes

Pretty much sums it up.......I get no pleasure in belittling anyone. Guess I was raised different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the bad guy won"

Har!

"un-winnable wars"

Except, heh, we're winning them, Madverts, without your support.

smith, we conservatives don't WANT unity with Obama. We don't think he is good for the country, and we're going to fight for what we know is right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ImperiumMundi - "you must feel great today, having voted obama. but why is it you're not celebrating like most Americans dems that i know...

As you know very well (but pretend not to), I am not American, but yes, I am celebrating with millions not just in America but around the globe who have seen the Bush Administration policies of hatred, divisiveness, downright ignorance and greed - policies you have ardently supported - get the boot.

It's a great feeling.

Why aren't you out there celebrating? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And ImperiumMundi, I'm baffled as to why you, Sarge, Sailwind, etc. refused to put your country first by voting for mccain.

???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

". . . we conservatives don't WANT unity with Obama. We don't think he is good for the country, and we're going to fight for what we know is right."

Hmm... I thought this was all about unity as a NATION, not some grudge match with Obama, the man, to soothe your wounded pride.

You're going to "fight for what's right"? What, pray tell, is that supposed to mean?

Whether you agree with what Obama represents is irrelevant. He is the duly elected president of the United States. It's well past time you started being a patriot, a citizen, or whatever nifty catchword the GOP is monopolizing these days to fabricate legitimacy, and act like it, son. Move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "smith, we conservatives don't WANT unity with Obama. We don't think he is good for the country, and we're going to fight for what we know is right."

What with? Sarah Palin and the wreckage of a once powerful party??

LOL!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge -

2 unwinnable wars. $10 trillion in debt. Having to now beg China for $550 billion to fund Bush's bailout more enemies than ever America's reputation in tatters Americans divided against Americans.

And you think the last 8 years have been good for your nation?

Are you kidding?

Interestingly, the majority of your countrymen asked exactly the same question when presented with the opportunity to put mccain and Palin into power on November 4th....... - ARE YOU KIDDING?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, etc. refused to put your country first

There were two candidates in this election Obama and McCain.

One had the resume and experience and a record I could look at to determine if he could be President.

The other had a thin resume but talked nice.

I voted for the guy that I could trust with keys based on his record.

You Sushi if you could have voted, voted agaisn't the candidate that wasn't even running. Your vote was agaisn't Bush.

If never saw anything different. this election was in your mind and most others here Obama vs Bush, McCain was just a minor distraction that got in your way.

The attacks on Palin only happened after he choose her and shook up the race and the possibilty that he might actually win after all is the only reason for the venom poured her way.

McCain was suppose to be the honorable veteran that would go down in defeat. Just as Dole did in 1996. He wasn't the pushover you thought and it was then he had to be smeared along with his running mate with a vengeance.

The man wasn't playing according to the narrative.

That is the summary of this election in a nutshell.

The Rpublican party will rebuild. Obama actually thinks he has a mandate and he will way over reach in pushing his agenda. One thing I have learned about Obama and even the fawning media acknowledges this, is he has one hell of an ego, that whole Greek column thing and all. He'll be a Clinton first term on steriods and the America will reject that just as hard as they did with Clinton.

But back to the your suggestion that I didn't put my country first.....I did, McCain was the one running in this election not Bush and that was the guy I looked at and supported. I understood that from the gitgo, you never did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - "It's well past time you started being a patriot, a citizen, or whatever nifty catchword the GOP is monopolizing these days to fabricate legitimacy, and act like it, son. Move on."

I'm also wondering when Sarge is going to start - finally - to be a patriot.

Haven't seen any sign of it yet! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After reading every post on this thread, my feelings here are bittersweet. On one hand, as a liberal, it benefits me to see the Democratic party remain in power, at least for the next 8 years, and I take great solace in knowing that here, on JT, the republican posters have not offered one single post in how to recover their party's relevance. Not one. All I see is whining and finger pointing. Again, as a liberal who actually took the time to read the writing on the wall on Nov. 4, they (repubs here at JT) are in a collective hole, whining about not having a bigger shovel. They just don't think it is fair that they didn't get what they wanted. Zero talk about what to do about changing things, just, "it isn't fair."

That's sad and a little pathetic and it makes me a little worried. I don't want the Democratic party to have absolute power in American politics. I think we all benefit from the checks and balances that the two party system offers and I think that the Democrats would eventually really screw things up without a viable second party, keeping them in check.

That said, Democratic dominance is EXACTLY what we will get if the republican posters here at JT are representative of republicans as a whole because none of them want to work toward fixing their party's numerous problems. They just want to cry about how they didn't get their way.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suppose what's irritating about the Republican Party is its sense of entitlement, as if the US presidency belongs to them. Republicans didn't used to be that way, but 3 straight landslide victories under Reagan and Bush in the 1980s went to their heads. But look now: the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections. It hasn't won a decisive presidential victory in 20 years (sorry, but Bush's 286-252 electoral victory over Kerry in 2004 wasn't decisive). And yet Republicans still have that sense of entitlement.

But the US is a competitive 2-party democracy (DON'T respond taniwha, I really don't want to hear your broken record socialist blather). It's not a de facto one party state as Japan has been for much of the past 60 years, and it's not an actual one-party state like China. Nor is it a barely functioning state where rich people pay no taxes, such as Pakistan.

Is this what US conservatives want, for the government to barely function, for the wealthy not to pay taxes, for the Republican Party to rule forever? And how about the legislative branch of government? So many conservatives laughably claimed that Palin had more experience than Biden, McCain, and Obama put together, by virtue of her 20 months as governor of Alaska. Do conservatives feel the legislative process is unnecessary? Were you pleased by Bush's near-authoritarian style of rule when Republicans controlled Congress? Why? Does actual legislative democracy frustrate you? If so, and if you're Americans, I think you're citizens of the wrong country. The more liberal party just won a decisive victory and deserves a chance to govern.

Conservatives will try to destroy Obama, no doubt. They nearly impeached the last Democratic president, and their knives are drawn. But I think the president-elect is prepared.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He'll be a Clinton first term on steriods and the America will reject that just as hard as they did with Clinton.

I thought Clinton did a full two terms? I saw some folk make a fuss over a dirty blue dress and some shenanigans that were nobody's business but Bill & Hillary's, but I never saw America 'reject' Clinton.

Did I miss something?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi: "Two unwinnable wars"

Except, heh, we're winning them, Sushi, without your support.

MASSWIPE: "what's irritating about the Republican Party is its sense of entitlement"

No, that's what's irritating about the Democrat Party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, - "If never saw anything different. this election was in your mind and most others here Obama vs Bush, McCain was just a minor distraction that got in your way."

That is partially correct.

I thought 'anyone but Bush,' looked at what mccain was offering and saw the following:

not serious about the environment self confessed dimwit on the economy when the economy is the No.1 issue wants to continue two extremely costly wars when there's no money in the bank to pay for them wants to drill for more oil at the expense of the environment he says he wants to protect favors tax favors for oil copmpanies that are making mind-numbingly, historically, record-breaking profits at the expense of Joe Sixpacks Wouldn't admit it but was too gutless to sit down and actiually engage with the bag guys (as Bush, to his credit, has finally started to do). His first presidential-level decision was to pick Sarah Palin as a a running mate, someone who - at times - makes Bush look smart.

Sail, there was a whole host of reasons why myself and the majority of your countrymen saw that mccain was simply the wrong guy to lead your nation.

I think you were looking primarily at how both candidates' policies would affect your taxes, without looking too closely at other more important areas.

Had you put your country first, I think you would have chosen Obama.

Also, I think you were moved by mccain's concession speech last night.

Many people were.

Fact is, he was eloquent because for the first time, he didn't have the need to lie to you and millions of other U.S. voters.

Mccain simply made too many bad decisions and was clearly not fit for the job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, I'm glad you didn't buy all that Obama is a Socialist, friend of terrorists, palling around with terrorists, etc.

Mumbo like that was just the pits, was off topic and at the end of the day, failed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Conservatives will try to destroy Obama"

Nah, we just want to stop him from destroying our country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GOP RIP. Let's hope. The world is breathing a little easier with the defeat of John McCane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans in tatters"

The Republicans have lost one out of the past three presidential elections. Americans don't usually like having the same party in the White House for more than two consecutive terms. It's our way. Tatters? Whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka - "That said, Democratic dominance is EXACTLY what we will get if the republican posters here at JT are representative of republicans as a whole because none of them want to work toward fixing their party's numerous problems. They just want to cry about how they didn't get their way."

Very, very well put!

There's a lot of bitterness among Republicans on JT, that's for sure.

What I don't get is the writing has been on the wall for their party for so many years now....and they still missed it.

Regarding fixing the GOP, where do you start?

The values voters are in disarray after being done over by Bush, their leadership still thinks the GOP should be right of center when the result of yesterday's election clearly shows it's left and liberal.

The GOP has tried every trick in the Bush/Rove book of lies, dirty tricks, hatred, bitterness and anger, and none of it worked.

The GOP is going to have to wipe the slate clean, and if they put Palin in any position of power, they'll remain out of power for another decade. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The world is breathing a little easier with the defeat of John ( McCain )"

No, but the terrorists are giddy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"They just want to cry about how they didn't get their way"

Who's crying? Besides the Reverend Jackson? Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The GOP needs to do some serious soul searching but that would require they have souls...no evidence of that so far.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what happened to Joe The Plumber?

I heard he has a full time, 7-day-a-week job unblocking the toilets at RNC Headquarters.

Looks like he'll have that job for a while.... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The attacks on Palin only happened after he choose her and shook up the race and the possibilty that he might actually win after all is the only reason for the venom poured her way.

But why is it continuing to pour after the race is over, Sailwind? I find it offensive to read things like "Wasilla Hillbillies went on a coast to coast shopping spree at Nieman Marcus." The clothing bills are still coming in, apparently her staff made purchases on their own credits cards and are now seeking reimbursement. The RNC will have to send someone to Alaska to do a complete inventory for book-keeping purposes.

Other tidbits from the McCain staff are more appropriate for the National Enquirer such as: "She greeted us in a towel." And of course "She didn't know Africa was a continent."

McCain's surprise pick of Sarah Palin enabled him to dominate the newscycle. At first that put him ahead but, particularly after the Katie Couric interview, she pulled him down. This choice did not reflect well on him, underscoring the fact that even those with long resumes are capable of bad judgment. Besides, if people voted on length of resumes, Al Gore would have won by a landslide in 2000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, Sushi, put down Joe the Plumber, a patriotic American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"she ( Palin ) pulled him ( McCain ) down"

She did not. The financial crisis handed Obama the presidency and you know it, Betzee.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahhhh. Can't you just feel the unity! Bipartisanship!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The way I see it, the Republicans destroyed themselves.

This was a GOP suicide.

GOP supporters like those on this board either willingly or not backed an ever increasing pile of lies that emanated from their party's leadsership, vicious attacks on people and their own Constitution, corruption, out-of-control spending, unjust wars, pork-barreling, wedge tactics and divisive strategies.

Americans finally called time on all of that on November 4th.

Obama's winning margin may not totally be a mandate for him, but it sure as heck is a mandate against the GOP/Bush/Cheney/Rove/Neocon tactics that have destroyed America and trashed not only their own economy, but many economies around the world (take note: the British PM and Russian president have both openly blamed America for the global economic meltdown we are now witnessing.)

Republicans - the only ones you have to blame for the flame out of your party is yourselves.

Don't blame the Dems, don't blame the economy, don't blame 'liberals,' terrorists, Bill Ayers or Obama.

If you want to see where the problem lies, look in the mirror, sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - "This choice [of Palin] did not reflect well on him."

...that statement is just dripping with understatement, ... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Sure, Sushi, put down Joe the Plumber, a patriotic American."

Heh, unlike john mccain and his merry band of supporters who seemed to think it best to put their country last. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The financial crisis handed Obama the presidency and you know it, Betzee.

I heard Arianna Huffington speak while McCain was still ahead and before the financial crisis hit. Amidst the hand holding she noted, every day the campaign is about Sarah Palin is a good day for them. Who cares if the Governor sold the Alaska jet on eBay or merely listed it? Ms. Huffington pointed out, the Republicans can't win on the issues and they know it. Hence we heard much more about Bill Ayers than we did about McCain's economic plans. Did he ever explain why he reversed himself on the GWB tax cuts? No, he continued on a quixotic crusade against ear-marks.

The problem for Palin was the more people got to "know" her, the less they liked her. Particularly moderates who needed to be courted. As someone in the McCain staff explained in frustration, "She either came across as a scripted zombie or a complete ignoramous."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "The financial crisis handed Obama the presidency and you know it, Betzee."

Sarah Palin was the main factor that sunk mccain's ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi: "Heh, unlike john mccain ( John McCain ) and his merry band of supporters who seemed to think it best to put their country last"

Insulting, to say the least.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: "moderates who needed to be courted"

Heh, those "moderates" were really Democrats who just didn't want to be labeled Democrats. McCain was never going to get their votes anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: "someone in the McCain staff"

Who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, the problem is, you failed to put your country first.

A vote for mccain was just the wrong thing to do.

And if you still can't understand how the 8 Bush years have savaged your country, I don't think you will ever understand it, no matter how hard I try.

But Sarge, your countryfolk have spoken, and they have comprehensively slammed the door shut on the president you voted for twice and every policy of that same president that you have so ardently supported over the last 8 years.

If Bush was onto a good thing, and by association mccain, why did mccain lose?

Sarge, it must be getting cold standing outside in the cold when everyone else has moved on. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, those "moderates" were really Democrats who just didn't want to be labeled Democrats. McCain was never going to get their votes anyway.

Last time they were all Republicans who went for GWB. The press was certainly against him yet he managed to pull it off so why couldn't McCain manage the same feat?

Voter preference for GWB has been a attributed to the feeling "he's the guy I'd prefer to have a beer with." If that's the basis of your selection, well you'd better be prepared to spend the next four years stone cold drunk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: "The problem for Palin was the more people got to "know" her, the less they liked her."

Those people would be Democrats, because they knew Palin was a threat to Obama's campaign. Heck, the more I found out about Palin, the more I liked her! What's not to like? ( bracing for a slew of insults now, ha ha! )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"[Obama will] be a Clinton first term on steriods and the America will reject that just as hard as they did with Clinton."

I'm not sure what fantastical interpretation of reality you're looking at to reach that conclusion, but America didn't reject Clinton. He was reelected and left the White House and the United States with a $86.4 billion budget surplus at the end of fiscal 2000. He also finished with an approval rating of 68%, higher than any other departing president in 70 years. That's not rejection, Sailwind.

Also, Obama is not Clinton. They're vastly different men with different viewpoints and experiences.

Unless, of course, you want to lump them together because they're members of the same political party. As simplistic as that would be to do, it would then be safe to say that John McCain and George W. Bush are exectly the same, too.

Which would further suggest that we're all pretty damned lucky McCain wasn't elected, considering the bang-up job Bush has done during his presidency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRA - "He was reelected"

I already said we had brain farts in 1992 AND 1996.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's not to like? ( bracing for a slew of insults now, ha ha! )

You won't find anything worse than the dirt now being dished by McCain staffers on Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "I already said we had brain farts in 1992 AND 1996."

You must have mistyped. I know you meant 2000 and 2004.

Sorry, I'm picky on details. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi: "A vote for mccain ( McCain ) was just the wrong thing to do"

Was not. It was the right thing to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and Sarge, Sarah Palin has returned to Alaska (or is it Russia?)

Let's hope that for the good of America, she stays there :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi:" Sarah Palin has returned to Alaska"

You figured that all out by yourself?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - No, I meant 1992 and 1996.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - "Voter preference for GWB has been a attributed to the feeling "he's the guy I'd prefer to have a beer with." If that's the basis of your selection, well you'd better be prepared to spend the next four years stone cold drunk."

LOL! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith, we conservatives don't WANT unity with Obama. We don't think he is good for the country, and we're going to fight for what we know is right.

You go right ahead. Everyone else is going to ignore you. Karl Rove said something much more rational on FOX News, that the Republicans would work with Obama when they could, persuade him when he's open to persuasion and challenge him over issues they completely disagreed with him. Or words to that effect. Sounds like the right attitude to opposition to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: "someone in the McCain staff" Who?

That will be revealed in next week's Newsweek.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - Come on, don't you have any faith in JT posters? Ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The problem for Palin was the more people got to "know" her, the less they liked her."

Those people would be Democrats

Again, playing fast and loose with the facts, Sarge? Fellow conservatives denounced Palin.

"I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States...” - David Frum, former speechwriter for President Bush

"I think the Katie Couric interview shows that she needs to be briefed more on certain aspects...” - Jim Greer, Florida Republican Party chairman

"I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. . . . [Palin is] clearly out of her league..." - Kathleen Parker, syndicated conservative commentator

There's lots more from GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio, conservative columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez, Republican strategist Chris Lacivita, et al. Hopefully, you get the idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

whatever, it's an 8-12 year cycle as far as party dominance goes. The Republicans were punished for their arrogance the same way the Democarts were during the Republican revolution of the 90s. Give the Democrats 8-12 years with majorities to get out of touch with the voters and things will be reversed again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: face it, bud, the US spoke, and it proved to be GREATLY against McCain/Palin, and hugely in favour of Obama and Biden. They have proven that the latter two are right, while the former were wrong. You need to own up to it, my friend, because the sooner you do the sooner you can start living life in a positive manner instead of defining it through misery.

You see, that's the problem with most Republicans; they really actually have no idea what they want, and are genuinely afraid of improving their lives... except for the neocons at the top who know full well how to pull the wool over the eyes of people like yourself. Obama offers peace, a positive future, and hope; McCain offered nothing more than bush's failed policies, guaranteed even more war than we have today, and had a campaign filled with nothing but hate, ignorance, and belligerence. McCain failed.

I'll give you this, McCain is more intelligent and a better person than many people are making him out to be on this site. But that's what makes it all the sadder; he CHOSE the low-road himself, and chose to be a hypocrite and practice the exact same things he SWORE never to do when they were used against him on the GOP ticket in 2000, and again with the swiftboating of John Kerry. In that respect, he deserves the fool title and rights of 'loser', which he is. sarge, you voted for a loser, bottom line. And before you try and cut and paste with a witty comment like 'I did not', remember that he lost, so you would be incorrect.

Anyway, good riddance to the dying GOP. I look forward to seeing it splinter into two or more parties over the next two years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain: Shhhh... sarge doesn't want to hear those things.

sarge: speaking of LFR's comments, are those people democrats? liberals? or wait... are they GOP 'socialists'? Communists? Seems to me they are just plain old republicans, like the many others that hate and correctly blame sarah palin for the loss. Well, in part correct, any way. There are plenty of good reasons why McCain lost; first and foremost because he was the wrong man for the job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith,

Shhhh... sarge doesn't want to hear those things.

Yeah, I know. But I can't help but thinking that some of it might eventually sink in.

They say change starts with the individual. If perhaps Sarge could find the courage or integrity to admit that he's been wrong about a great many things regarding Obama and this election, he might finally come to understand why Obama appeals to so many Americans, rather than writing off the will of the people with such confoundingly arrogant and infantile tripe as "it was a brain fart" or "they were duped."

Obama's 64% of the electoral college delegate's votes versus McCain's 30%. Even Bush, for all the insistence from folks like Sarge that Bush was what America needed, couldn't pull those numbers in either of his election campaigns.

Based on the electoral college system and the responsibility we place in college delegates to vote in the best interests of their constituency ('cause it's not about the popular vote, right, Sarge? That's what you're little troupe claimed in 2000), Obama has a clear mandate to lead, whether some here would choose to accept it or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 at 10:31 PM JST - 6th November

This was a good post. I sincerely hope the bitterness will end and people will accept the result of this election. I also agree that it is beneficial to have a viable second party which can adapt when the country matures. Democrats made a lot of changes when the country took on a new direction away from the old Democratic ideology. I don't know what people expect if it is not good enough for us to offer our positive opinion of Republican leadership that we feel is still viable. Are we expected to change our views after winning? Are we expected to shut up about Republicans that we believe were a disaster?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks GoodDonkey.

I think, along with george bush and dick cheney being a 400 lb. albatross around the neck of the republican party, another reason the Democratic party has returned to dominance is because they learned their lesson after 2004. I believe Howard Dean has done a fantastic job and I think President-elect Obama (do you ever tire of reading THAT?) campaigned very wisely. He turned many red states blue by telling them he would be a leader for them, not just for Democrats and liberals. The republican party has been dividing the nation. Dean and President-elect Obama worked to unite. That was the lesson that was learned. Now, the GOP has to learn the same lesson and step one is to admit, they are a heavily flawed party whose two-trick pony (fear and hate) is completely and utterly played out, look inward at their own flaws instead of outward at imagined prejudices against them.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After the Bush disaster you would expect the republicans to have to rebuild, sort of like after the Ford years.

What I find really interesting is how magnanimous a lot of the posters are in victory. Going to be a long four years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you Palin! You have no idea of the good you have done for the Democrats! Run in 2012 "plase"! Obama would be easily re-elected ;)

Still, I feel sorry for McCain! He would have done better with... how did Sarah put it " a pitbull with lipstick"! I will not paraphrase... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/05/john-mccain-sarah-palin

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, I will speak, and I am right. I know what I am talking about!!! LIsten up rush. Here is the secret that the leaders of the Republican Party need to know, or should I say, needed to know, and its very very simple. But, its the secret.

They didn't have to appeal to the "base", or the "moral majority" or the "religious right" at all!! It doesn't really matter what Dobson thinks, and who he endorses a month out of the election day.

Yes, Palin "energized" the base, and the social conservatives - no doubt about it. But the simple, powerful truth that the repub leaders should know by now is, that they don't have to worry about energizing that base!!!! Why? Because even if there were no electrifying rallies with Sarah, the religious right would have come out to vote in the end. People have failed to understand their psyche, and that is worrying. Even if there was no energy, no ideal candidate, no "real evangelical" no "one of us" Sarah types, come election day, the hard core base for whom abortion type issues are big, would have come out and voted AGAINST Obama, or Clinton on the day. The Limbaugh listeners, would have gone out to vote even if there was no Sarah, because they would feel that if they didn't they would have helped the more liberal team win. It's simple. So, the republicans already have that group. They think its their patriotic duty, even their duty to God to not let the "more" pro abortion, liberal guy in. So, instead they needed to appeal to the moderates. Do you guys get it? The people who were terrified of Ayers, Moslems, Socialism would have voted anyway. YOU HAVE THEIR VOTE! But, maybe you lost the undecideds precisely because they were SCARED of the energy that Palin brought, and got too embarrassed to vote republican. So, yes, Palin made rush and the religious right happy. But,at what cost? Even if you didn't bring her in, and Dobson and the social conservatives felt ignored, miffed, left out they would have still come out on the day. You have to think about whose votes are a given and which votes you have to go after.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In short, you have to win the election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will forcefully oppose President-elect Barack Obama the MSM, and socialists. Socialism can only win in the long run through such tactics; through suppression of the free speech rights of invidivuals who want to be treated as people and not members of a herd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi says:

"I presume you supported Bush? Obama hasn't even started his presidency yet adn you are already attacking him? It's anger like this that destroyed the GOP and I for one won't be sad to see it dissapear."

Dude - I have read many of your posts. You have been angrily attacking Bush for years. Such anger seems to have helped the Dems regain the White House. Expect to receive in kind what you and the rest of the hateful "US of KK-A" Lefty's have been dishing out for the last eight years.

It is just so amazing how the Liberals here have turned on a dime from attack mode against Bush to attack mode against anyone who dares to attack the chosen one. Unreal - but not un-expected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have been angrily attacking Bush for years

Bush gave people plenty to be angry about. If Obama follows in his footsteps, I hope he gets attacked just as hard - harder, because he's promised different. Meanwhile, he hasn't done anything (yet) to get angry about. Apart from winning an election.

Give him a chance. If he goes around starting wars, insulting allies and generally being a moron, then will be the time to attack him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"going to be a long four years"

No doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yasukuni, I see you are in fine form again today, and like you claimed, 100% right. And I think there was a time when the leadership of the Republican party thought EXACTLY the way you do, but somewhere along the line somebody lost the plot. When you said "in short, you have to win the election" you hit the nail on the head. The problem now though is that you have many Republican supporters who are no longer interested in winning elections. They are only interested in winning elections on their own terms. Fair enough, but that is not politics. It is a recipe for political disaster though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On this site there were endless posts, and the posters know who they are, touting Sarah Palin's qualifications for VP. So I couldn't help hoping they could be locked in a room where they were forced to listen, over and over, to the recorded phone call in which that Canadian prankster has Governor Palin convinced she is speaking to Nicolas Sarkozy. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I heard it myself.

In next week's Newsweek an angry McCain staffer describes the Palin family as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast." As a Democrat I could take pleasure in the hypocrisy. After all, it was none other than Rudy Guiliani who declared at the Republican National convention, "I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that her hometown isn't cosmopolitan enough. I'm sorry, Barack, that it's not flashy enough." Still, I found the characterization deeply offensive. That Sarah Palin discovered her inner Imelda Marcos I don't doubt for a minute. But there's no need to resort to class-based slurs.

After being told she was qualified owing to her executive experience, we learn she thought South Africa was a region of the country of Africa. This doesn't inspire confidence in the Republican Party. Obviously, had they won they would have kept this information under tap wraps and continued to insist Governor Palin was qualified to serve as VP.

This is the problem with the Republican Party. It's all about loyalty. The few conservative commentators who questioned Palin's qualifications and found her wanting were "fatwa-ed," the word invented by Christopher Buckley to describe how his "the emperor has no clothes" explanation for defecting to Obama was received by the readers of the magazine his father started.

That made it almost impossible for McCain to shine, even if he had known anything about economics, after Wall Street's meltdown. He was committed to the deregulation agenda pushed since the days of Reagan. There had been no serious discussion of its shortcomings and nothing for him to draw on.

In 2004 former Reagan administration official Bruce Bartlett jumped ship to vote for John Kerry. Later he summed up the difference between the Clinton and GWB's staff in a telling way on his blog:

I had just started writing some mildly critical things about some of Mr. Bush’s policies, like the Medicare drug program, which I thought was unaffordable. Up until that time, I had been almost entirely positive in my writings about the administration.

So I was taken aback when I went up to [a member of the GWB administration] to say hello and he pointedly turned his back on me and walked away. I guess he thought he was punishing me for my criticism. All this did was confirm my growing belief that Mr. Bush would ultimately be a disaster for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

The funny thing is that I was treated far better by Bill Clinton’s people while he was in office, even though I almost never had a good word to say about their positions. To their credit, they really believed in what they were doing and were almost evangelical in their desire to explain why it was right, even to Republicans like me who were unlikely to ever embrace their message.

We can't afford this type of loyalty-first facts be damned style of governance. For those worried Obama will introduce a lot of new programs, put your minds at ease. The future's been spent. While GWB will step down in January, the five trillion he blew through will still be with us and need to be paid off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boy,

Some folks are really going to miss Sarah Palin the next few months.

They might even discover that they have a life after all.

I heard she beat her sled dogs also and the ASPCA is investigating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I mean, I have to tell you if I heard once, I heard 1,000 times from people, and I never said this, never said this on the air because you just don't say these things, but I heard a million times from people, "I'm going to vote for John McCain and, you know, I mean, he's old. Maybe we get Sarah Palin in the first term." You know what I mean?

-glenn beck

But it's the liberals who are mean and nasty.

Noted.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will forcefully oppose President-elect Barack Obama the MSM, and socialists.

Good for you. Forcefully oppose all you like, if you're not planning on running for office any time soon it won't make any difference whatsover. If you are, judging by the election results you might have a hard time getting elected just now on a policy platform like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They say the liberals are socialists. I heard a poster say that we did not know Obama. I have known about Obama since he ran in 1996 and I saw him on WTTW in Chicago, which is the PBS station. Obama is not a socialist but feel free to continue to make such claims and still claim the higher ground. When someone claims that we do not know Obama and he does not know that for a fact he is lying. I was impressed with Obama the first time I saw his interview. I was conflicted when he ran against Bobby Rush. How could I give up my support for a radical like Bobby Rush who was a co-founder of the Black Panthers in Illinois.

Anyway, dishonesty at the level I have seen by Republicans around here is exactly what will stunt the rebuilding efforts of the Republican party. If conservatives want to make me the bad guy. I accept wholeheartedly. Because I like to point out that Palin is now being accused of spending another $30,000.00 on clothes after the $100,000.00 scandal. These revelations are from Republicans; by the way a purported $40,000.00 clothing bill for the "first dude of Alaska," the honorable Todd Palin.

I really doubt that you will have Sen. Dick Lugar to help you rebuild the Republican party. I can feel it in my heart that Biden is trying to get him the best position possible. It may be that Lugar is telling them he wants to stay in the senate. Either way he is going to be very popular. But the Arch Conservatives here will only want to have more not less Arch Conservatives in office. Good luck getting them elected. But it will probably not be up to you it will be in the hands of the young Republicans and moderates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

re sarah.

But, i think we would probably all be laughing or crying or surprised if a surprise test was sprung on political leaders of most countries. Would make for great TV I guess.

Having said that I am often dismayed at how little I know. Though I was a little more up to speed than Sarah even on Nafta. Come to think of it, I could use a new wardrobe... Do you think they'd notice that I wasn't American? After all, Obama faked his birth certificate! (Joke - but, in all seriousness I had the sad task of explaining to dear friends why it was unlikely that Obama was indeed a Kenyan born Muslim....sigh).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets face it, the only group still supporting the repub party are angry white guys losers who dont know why they are so angry. They can all move to Utah.

Palin is ducking interviews now as I am sure McCain told her that her career is over. Too bad. I was looking forward to more embarrassing interviews where she screws up simple facts.

Larry King: We have heard you were not sure that Africa is continent and not a country.

FailinPalin: Oh no, you betcha. I look forward to visiting the capital soon, Africa City. Also Wasilla has a sister city in Africa called DungDung. Its in Eastern Africa, you know the east part.

Larry King: And what of the wardrobe malfunctions?

FailinPalin: You mean my shopping, oh that was nothing. I bill out everything back to the RNC as want me to spend as much as possible on myself. That is how politics works, especially in Alaska. Just ask Ted Stevens, my mentor. He had his friends pay for everything.

Larry King: So already many are calling for you to run in 2012.

FailinPalin: Actually I am more excited about my new TV show called Bible Spice and the Bible. Its kinda like the Flintstones but brought up 6000 years to the present. I play the part of the Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge. After that, who knows?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Breaking news...........Several Hotels that the Palin's were staying in are reporting towel theft.

Coincidence? I think not.

As far as the Republican Party rebuilding itself. It just needs to return to its role as the Party of Fiscal responsibility and less Government. The role it lost after they gained all three branches of Government and got drunk with power. The party needs to go back to what she was in the nineties and not what she become under Bush.

I personally think (and I do hope I am wrong but my gut tells me I'm not)that after 4 years of Obama and Dems in charge it's going to be a pretty easy sell to the Reagan Democrats that the Republicans are back to their traditional philosphy and will win them back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

It just needs to return to its role as the Party of Fiscal responsibility and less Government.

Except for the "just" part, I agree with this. Fiscal responsibility used to be the cornerstone of the Republican Party, and that’s something all Americans can relate to. Maintaining proper finances makes sense; It’s pragmatic, secular, and beneficial to all of society in a quantifiable way.

The party needs to go back to what she was in the nineties

What the Party became under Bush is merely an extension of what the Party transformed into during the nineties, which was a party that sold itself to the voters on a platform of presumed universal morality, driven in large part by evangelical Christians who somehow felt that dictating morality and ethics was the purview of the federal government. This sense of moral superiority and a subsequent belief that it was a “God given” duty to dictate those beliefs at a national level to Christians with different views on morality, non-Christians, and secular Americans, naturally manifested into a perceived mandate that being elected to political office was tantamount to a blank check to do whatever a relatively small group of people wanted, unchallengeable and untouchable.

As you said, they were drunk with power, and a grossly distorted sense that because “God is on our side,” they could do no wrong. I think we both can agree that that hasn’t been entirely true.

The Republican Party needs to do more than "just" return to fiscal responsibility. It needs to shake off the corruptive influence of the Christian Right, as well as retreat from this arrogant and insulting presumption that it is THE party that embodies ethics and morality. Particularly when we both know that isn’t entirely true either.

Particularly when you consider the sheer meanness demonstrated by Republican supporters who think nothing of misdirecting, intimidating, and lying to fellow Americans in the days leading up to a national election, all in order to sway the vote. All in the name of victory. The level of unbridled contempt for fellow human beings it must take to lead people to engage in such dishonorable acts is unfathomable to me. But it happened. During this election. During the 2004 election. During the 2000 election. And Republican leadership made no mention of it, made no effort to denounce it.

I agree with you about the danger of having one party in power across all three branches. It’s an invitation for abuse of power. Your anxieties are unfounded however. The Supreme Court is still packed with Bush-appointees. But the alternative isn’t particularly heartening either, when we both know that a Republican White House versus a Democratic Senate usually results in the government not accomplishing a whole lot due to constant vetos, filibusters, and general political stonewalling.

This has a great deal to do with much of the sentiment expressed on this thread and others by McCain supporters who are upset at his loss:

“[W]e conservatives don't WANT unity with Obama. We don't think he is good for the country, and we're going to fight for what we know is right.” There’s that superiority complex I mentioned…

“I will forcefully oppose President-elect Barack Obama the MSM, and socialists.”

“Expect to receive in kind what you . . . have been dishing out for the last eight years.”

“America will not be united after this election. Obama will get a short honeymoon, and then it's on!”

These comments exemplify just what has been so painfully wrong with politics in this country for the past 20 years at least, with neither side understanding or wanting to understand that compromise is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.

Now it’s all about “Winner takes all” and “No surrender, no retreat.” It’s about refusing to budge. It’s about piss-poor sportsmanship. It’s about deception and deceit. It’s about saddling crucial legislation with completely unrelated and radical riders that threaten to tank the bill if opposition refuses to swallow them. I shudder to imagine what tiny provisions were snuck by either party into the Wall Street bailout bill.

Democracy takes compromise. It takes mutual respect and a willingness to at least try to understand opposing views. So far, I’ve seen far more willingness on the Democratic side to find common ground than I’ve seen from the Republican side for the past 16 years. Bush making it to a second term is testament to that. A successful Democracy takes the kind of individual intergrity that recognizes neither party actually wants to see the destruction of the country, despite hyperbole to the contrary from disgruntled voters like many at this site.

I have a profound hope that the elected representatives on the Republican side of the aisle of our House and Senate display far greater temperance and wisdom than posters at JT and work in harmony with their Democratic counterparts to ensure that Obama’s presidency is a success, not for the sake of Obama, but rather for the sake of a nation in deep, all-encompassing trouble. The same goes for Democrats who might feel the urge for retribution after 8 years of having their honor, integrity, and patriotism questioned with impunity by Republicans of all colors. But judging by the vitriol and hatred pouring out of the GOP campaign against Obama over the past three months, I’m not too terribly optimistic that we can rise above our own pettiness. I hope I’m wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Lets face it, the only group still supporting the repub party are angry white guys losers who dont know why they are so angry."

Let me guess. This was spoken by another angry white guy loser?

"They can all move to Utah." You are the one who sounds angry to me. Your party won, and you are still making inflammatory totally off the wall statements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc, sorry about that. I over reacted. Just that I know many people who were not that angry and certainly not losers who voted republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In his column today Paul Krugman makes the same observation I have here about GWB's social security privatization plan:

In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.

This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

The Republican arguments against this agenda don't take into account changing realities. Tax breaks for the wealthy, they have argued since the days of Reagan who went down the path of "spend and borrow" which GWB accelerated, will result in job creation for Americans. Except in this age of globalization,it may mean the rich man opts to relocate his business overseas to a country where health care is a government responsibility not that of the employer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Breaking news...........Several Hotels that the Palin's were staying in are reporting towel theft.

It's curious, Sailwind, you expressed outrage over things Obama supporters wrote about Sarah Palin but make light of the dirt now being dished by her McCain campaign handlers, things only those who actually had dealings with her would be in a position to know. Apparently she threw things at them (and not towels)!

Personally, I try to avoid being in the presence of anyone on a personal crusade to sully the reputation of someone with whom s/he has had a professional or personal falling out. It's unpleasant to listen to and there's always two sides to every story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

News flash from The Huffington Post:

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has reached out to President-elect Obama's transition team to indicate her interest in being named "ambassador to the nation of Africa," the governor confirmed today.

Gov. Palin said that although she had planned to continue in her position in Anchorage, she was willing to leave the governorship "because Africa is just such a darned important country."

"I have always been very, very interested in the nation of Africa, partly because of it being located where it is," she said. "If you are standing in Africa and you look real close, you can see South Africa."

Sarah Palin might be able to live this down but it would require acknowledgment on her part of what she doesn't know. There's no indication she has such a level of self-awareness, however. And with the Republican base insistent she was mistreated by the mainstream media she ain't likely to acquire any.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

It's worth it for the comical value. Never forget W's wise words that "Nigeria is a very important continent". Mrs Palin clearly understands this, but I have to wonder if you can see Poland from the continent of Nigeria...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More Breaking News.......Sarah Palin stole sweet and lows from a Diner in Ohio.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarah Palin was a breath of fresh air in this election campaign.

Palin in 2012!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, You are not really representing yourself very well here. What did you hope to accomplish with your last two posts? Do YOU find any value in what you had to say? I know your knee-jerk reaction is going to be to point out where and when I, or someone else has posted something really dumb, but, does that change your reaction to this election? No. It does not. Let.it.go. Right now, you are shrieking, "this isn't fair and I'm going to hold my breath until I get my way."

Well...you're not always going to get your way. You need to move on. All you are doing now is adding fuel to the fire that you are complaining about.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I’m not too terribly optimistic that we can rise above our own pettiness. I hope I’m wrong.

Maybe we can start with this. Respecting others opinions even if you disagree with them, and wish our President Elect the best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adverts,

It's always been my personal philosophy never to open the door clad only in a towel unless the person standing on the other side will be pleasantly surprised to find you so attired.

Dan Quayle, GHWB's VP who was viewed as an intellectual lightweight from the get-go, confirmed his unsuitability for the top job in the eyes of the electorate when he spelled "potatoe." What did he do about it? Well, he made an advertisement for the potato growers industry. He was far funnier making fun of himself than any comedian could be mimicking him.

By contrast, there's absolutely no recognition on the part of Sarah Palin that she flubbed up. When "Sarkozy" tells her, "I can see Belgium from my house" she seems to feel it gives them something in common!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fiscal responsibility used to be the cornerstone of the Republican Party, and that’s something all Americans can relate to. Maintaining proper finances makes sense; It’s pragmatic, secular, and beneficial to all of society in a quantifiable way.

Don't say "secular." That'll make it a dead letter among the true believers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the end, Obama is a charismatic great speaker with superior organizational skills. And that is what makes a great President.

Actually, a lot of it is luck and public perception. JFK's reputation hasn't fared so well, for example, now that his presidency has been more fully digested by historians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, Sail. I can't help you at all. You have to want to be helped first.

You want to whine and cry that the world didn't give you what you wanted and even if I did try to help you or whatever you wanted, it would be moot. You want your tantrum and you are going to throw it.

You are whining that palin is giving unfair treatment in the press but, how much is untrue? Got any more remaining bullets for the messenger while you ignore the truthful message?

I'm sorry you feel so hurt by the outcome of this election, I really am. It was an ugly campaign, on both sides.

However, right now, your finger pointing is just going to ensure that the next campaign is a bit easier for the Democrats to win. If that's your goal, fine, rock on, Sail. No problem there from me. You do what you feel you have to.

You have told me in the past that I needed to check myself. You were right. All I am asking is that you ask yourself if your posts on this thread are productive, even in the slightest, for you and/or your political party. That's all I am asking.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You are whining that palin ( Palin ) is ( being ) given unfair treatment in the press but how much is untrue?"

Most of it. Sarah Palin is being smeared by the press and even by some in the McCain campaign.

Palin in 2012!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think you got the arrow of causation running in the wrong direction there, Sarge. People in the McCain campaign are feeding unflattering details to the press which is passing 'em along.

Palin can run in 2012. Dan Quayle tried in 2000, after all. But her following will remain limited.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You were right. All I am asking is that you ask yourself if your posts on this thread are productive, even in the slightest, for you and/or your political party. That's all I am asking.

Taka

You may be right, maybe not productive though if you look at my entire posting history nowhere have I ever disparaged Obama or Biden. I sleep well with that. For me at the end of the day that is all that matters.

Yokosuka is doing well and my new job does keep me busy so I do apologize if my posts are done in a hurry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, No worries. Congratulations on the new job and there is absolutely no need to apologize to me.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Turn the volume up, sarge, UP. Even you might be freaked by the fundiness...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, if the Republicans want to regroup they should consider doing what losing parties in the UK and Japan do after general elections. They don't hang about waiting for Primaries three years or so down the line, they usually get new leaders immediately, they keep those leaders in the public eye and they make sure that the voters really know what the alternatives to the incumbent are. In November 2012 the USA will have had a President it's been familiar with for about six years, whereas the Republican leader of the opposition will probably only get a year or less to prove that he or she can do a better job. That makes little sense to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - "her following will remain limited"

If Obama manages not to get impeached and actually runs for re-election, and the Republicans return to their conservative roots and Palin gets the nomination, we're going to have our first female president! ( we could have had our first female vice president, but instead we're getting - cough - Biden )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon,

They don't hang about waiting for Primaries three years or so down the line, they usually get new leaders immediately, they keep those leaders in the public eye and they make sure that the voters really know what the alternatives to the incumbent are.

There are republicans doing just that. As much as some would like to see her stay in the limelight, I believe sarah palin's political career is deader than Elvis. However, Mike Huckabee is already positioning himself for a 2012 run and has been, in my opinion, for a few weeks now. I believe that if he campaigns from the middle and doesn't get bogged down by the religious right, he will be a very strong candidate for the republicans in 2012, but if he gets bogged down by the neo-conservatives and the religious right, he'll be setting himself up for an expensive race for 2nd place.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans in tatters

YES!!! To borrow a phrase"

"Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude,

Thanks for your thanks to my thanks from the other day.

RE: (JT) Righty's: WGAF? Not me. Its our time for the next two years. At least.

They still support Bush. They are irrelevant. They are evil. Ignore them.

When they come hat-in-hand to us, and plead to be part of what we created, then I will deign to respond:

When you

apologize for what you've done to our country, stop gibbering, frothing and stop lying repudiate Bush and his failures

and apologize for having questioned our patriotism,

then, and only then, will I condescend to enter a dialog.

Unil that day, you get nothing from me, other than, of course, my ever loving contempt and jeers.

Its a good day to be an American. A good day for America.

Our long national nightmare is OVER. We are back

0 ( +0 / -0 )

danmanit- talk about an unpatriotic post that alienates us TRUE patriots who voted for McCain and for freedom.

We are not in tatters, no way buster!!!

The Liberal media and its lies elected Obama, nothing else,do you understand NOW???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Liberal media and its lies elected Obama, nothing else,do you understand NOW???

hahaha, okie dokes. keep your shirt on. best throw away your TV and bunker down for a few years then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee

These post election Palin revelations: I remain skeptical. To say the least. Do you actually think Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent? Absurd.

All these 'revelations' are coming from....Schmidt and the RNC operatives. The same guys who brought you Obama is a Marxist-black-panther-secrete-muslim-terrorist who wants to teach sex-ed to four year olds.

Why do you even for a moment believe anything coming from them?

So the eternal question of cui bono arises. Yes, who in the Republican party wants to take down Palin and the theocons, now that she and they are at their weakest?

Who indeed?

Yes, now who do you

Ask yourself

0 ( +0 / -0 )

talk about an unpatriotic post that alienates us TRUE patriots who voted for McCain and for freedom.

We are not in tatters, no way buster!!!

The Liberal media and its lies elected Obama, nothing else,do you understand NOW???

Yes, it sure did... but comments and bluster like this does far more damage to 'patriots' such as yourself than it does to 'lefties' or the 'liberal media'. If the 'left' or in this case the Democrats are so wrong, why not strive for a Republican dictatorship? Then you wouldn't have to worry about the 'liberal media' ever again, and only 'patriots' would be in control. Again, just bluster and nothing constructive.

KN

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, a lot of it is luck and public perception. JFK's reputation hasn't fared so well, for example, now that his presidency has been more fully digested by historians.

That is true for others as well - LBJ is known mostly for the Vietnam war, but up until that time, as a President, he did more for Civil rights than anyone else.

I sincerely hope that Obama can make a dent or real progress in working out the numerous issues facing the US and indeed the world. I am not naieve enough to think that one (or perhaps two) term is enough to fix things, but starting progress is the key to solution. I am optimistic about Obama, personally. His 'positive presidency' does a lot for confidence - and that is a key first step.

KN

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DanManit, considering the story on Palin broke on Fox News, you might have your first clue. Anybody believe the reporter would have run it without approval from the higher ups? Palin may or not be a complete idiot, but we know that old Rupert most definitely isn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All this stuff about Palin is complete Nonesense. What gets me about it, is if anyone even happened to mention Obama's middle name, McCain was frothing at the mouth. And yet these people who are desperate to pin the loss on anyone but themselves, and their mistakes, want to blame Palin, and where is McCain.

<utter silence>

I've never liked McCain. Didn't vote for him in the primaries, wouldn't have voted for him in the general election if Obama hadn't been so much worse. Had it been Clinton running against him, I'd have voted for her instead.

Mike Huckabee is already positioning himself for a 2012 run and has been, in my opinion, for a few weeks now. I believe that if he campaigns from the middle and doesn't get bogged down by the religious right, he will be a very strong candidate for the republicans in 2012

Huckabee is a nutcase, and would be a horrible candidate for President. The man is Bush the sequel. Another Democrat lite. A Social Conservative, big government liberal. We've suffered through enough of that under Bush. If the Republicans are going to do anything in 2010, or 2012, they're going to have to make the case to the American people, that they are different then the Democrats. They're going to have to remember fiscal responsibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you actually think Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent? Absurd.

You're forgetting something. She is the self-proclaimed representative of Joe-Sixpack. Most Americans are terribly geography-challenged. But I'm less concerned with whether she knew or not than that McCain campaign staffers have seen fit to inform the public that she didn't know.

Ever since she came to national attention when McCain introduced her as his VP pick, issues of misogyny have swirled around the debate. Many on the Left questioned whether a woman with a special needs infant and a pregnant teenager should sign on for one of the most demanding jobs there can be, VP. By contrast, those on the Right, including the Dobson "Family First" crowd who have always held up the traditional family where Mom stays home to care for the kids as the model for us all, insisted anyone who questioned her priorities was sexist.

Now that she won't be heading to Washington I don't think I'm alone in breathing a huge sigh of relief. At the same time, I'm uncomfortable with Governor Palin being outed in this humiliating fashion by the McCain team using rather seixst language, "diva, shopaholic," etc. Part of the the discomfort may come from the fact these are accurate characterizations given what I've read, but I nonetheless think it's a good experience to find yourself confronting conflicting sentiments because it serves to sharpen your thinking.

The losing side in any campaign is always forced to assess what what wrong and the recriminations are naturally stronger when the race was close. Why did it slip through our fingers is essentially a search for a scapegoat. Sarah Palin was picked on the basis of her connections to the religious right and her gender, both of which were expected to draw voters to support the Republican ticket. She was not chosen for her experience, despite all those belabored posts here explaining why she was in fact more qualified than either Dem. The McCain campaign apparently never vetted her to find out what she knew, and more importantly, what she didn't know. So it's hardly fair to blame her for their loss, but clearly that's what some disgruntled staffers, who have to seek new jobs, are doing.

One our side, meanwhile, Obama convened an economic summit and got to work. I shudder to imagine McCain presiding over one; he wouldn't have a clue who to invite or what questions to ask. We're in much better hands. And the stock market, despite the abysmal economic indicators released today, rallied a bit. I take that as a sign of investor confidence.

Meanwhile some on the Right have already lost it. Reading John Derbyshire is a secret pleasure of mine, he never attempts to mask his anger! Today he compared Obama's expanded service corps programs (Peace Corps, etc) to Nazi concentration camps. The next four years are sure gonna be fun! (If you inhabit a black and white universe, the last thing you want is to have to question your assumptions.)

Well, I'm off to Washington where I intend to trek over to the Lincoln Memorial and sign the sheet which has been hung for people to offer their congratulations and best wishes. I just want to breathe and bask in the anticipation that better leadership will come in January.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee.

Have a safe trip.

I hope you can help some of these folks while your there.

Just click the play button...Enjoy

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DanManjt - You're very welcome. And btw, your 1:15 am post is brilliant. I got a little hot under the collar the other night and said that Republicans weren't true Americans because so many are already plotting against Obama; I provided several examples to back up my position as well as trashed two other posters' attempts to bat me over the head with the UCMJ. So it's good to see someone else putting these Repubs in their place. Just like the title says - in tatters. I say good riddance.

At the same time, I do admit that not all Republicans are Obama-haters; there actually are some out there truly interested in helping President Obama bring about the change America so desperately needs. But it's hard not to be suspicious when so many Repubs are so vocal in their hatred toward President Obama. Too many of them seem more interested in doing whatever is right for their "party" with no care about doing what's right for America. The two are inarguably opposite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The man is Bush the sequel. Another Democrat lite. A Social Conservative, big government liberal. We've suffered through enough of that under Bush.

Man, you really do just make this crap up as you go along.

And you're already throwning McCain under the bus? Damn, that was fast. Why? Because he doesn't embrace your gun-toting, Jeezuz-fearin', immigrant-free, anti-gay, "Family Values" vision of America? Trust me . . . He's better off without the support of zealots, yes, zealots, like you.

Moderator: Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarah Palin was definitely treated badly by the press. But she also didn't help herself. And the republican people who are now attacking her aren't helping their party at all. Some people might want to get revenge, but I don't see that McCain supporters now spreading behind the scenes stories about Palin helps the republican cause in any way at all.

In fact I don't think the republicans have to beat themselves up so much and ask why they lost. In a game, one team wins and the other loses. Why not ask why the other team won and learn, instead of beating yourself up over who dropped the ball or who was weak. Sometimes the other team just did more things right, and its wiser to look at them and learn. Hillary lost to Obama. Yeah she made some mistakes, but why don't people just realize that Obama had a lot going for him. The war in Iraq, the economy going so bad when it did, and being great at speaking and organizing all helped the first African American candidate. In the next election, it will be up to Obama to prove that he has delivered, and nobody will feel the same excitement about voting for a non-white candidate. Four years is a long time for Obama to not look as "messianic" as he does now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An interesting conversation reported at www.time.com:

I told John (McCain) the right wing never wants to be satisfied; they're professional whiners. They are never happy.

That was Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's last chief of staff at the White House, discussing a conversation he had with John McCain in 2007.

The hard-core right wing of the Republican voters, exemplified by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, make up just one part of the electorate. There are radical left-wingers, social democrats, liberals, moderates, centre-rightists and undecideds out there too. If the Republican party is going to recover, it can still advocate its core philosophy of small government, low taxes and free enterprise tempered by fiscal responsibility. However it also needs to demonstrate that it is not dominated by narrow-minded, self-righteous jerks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"There are radical left-wingers, .... out there too. If the Republican party is going to recover, it can still advocate its core philosophy of small government, low taxes and free enterprise tempered by fiscal responsibility.

So how many radical left-wingers will vote for a republican candidate arguing for small government and low taxes, versus a Democrat???

"t also needs to demonstrate that it is not dominated by narrow-minded, self-righteous jerks."

46% voted republican in spite of media bias, Obama blanketing the airways with prime time 30 min commercials, and popular entertainment regularly lampooning the VP candidate.

So you think this 46% were all narrow minded jerks?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So how many radical left-wingers will vote for a republican candidate arguing for small government and low taxes, versus a Democrat???

Probably not very many. My point being that there are other people in the electorate besides hard-core social conservatives, and that the Republican Party needs to win their votes as well.

So you think this 46% were all narrow minded jerks?

That's not actually what I said at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Incidentally, I notice you left out everyone else that I mentioned when you quoted me, i.e. the bit about the liberals, moderates, centre-rightists and undecideds (hrm. Is that a word?). Was that deliberate, by any chance?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GOP and Conservative got our hats handed to us, I admit it. However, our Presidential Nominee chose to run as an Independent wearing a Republican Moniker. Had McCain run as a true conservative, he'd have pasted Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Had McCain run as a true conservative, he'd have pasted Obama.

Had McCain run as a "true conservative," what differences would that have entailed? Specifically how would his platform have been different?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo says:

...he hasn't done anything (yet) to get angry about.

When a man sits in a racist, anti-American church for 20 years and gets a pass, you better believe that I am upset about that. He has never explained why he sat there and listened to his religeous mentors rants and never once questioned him or considered leaving. There are a lot of people that will not let that one slide even if the press does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee says:

After being told she was qualified owing to her executive experience, we learn she thought South Africa was a region of the country of Africa. This doesn't inspire confidence in the Republican Party.

I seen this report myself but I have seen a video of Barack <censored> Obama stating that America has 57 states. Now you tell me, does that make him qualified? You didn't hear much about this in the MSM because they had his back and have done all they can to smear Palin who is in fact, more politically experienced then Obama. Well, that's all water under the bridge now - but spare me this holier than thou about Obama being more qualified than Palin.... come on - 57 states? What an idiot!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude says:

But it's hard not to be suspicious when so many Repubs are so vocal in their hatred toward President Obama. Too many of them seem more interested in doing whatever is right for their "party" with no care about doing what's right for America. The two are inarguably opposite.

That is almost inspiring except you forgot the part about how Liberals have been tearing down President Bush - even hurting our war efforts - in order to regain power. It's one thing to go after Bush among us Americans, but Dems have been traveling the world to bashing Bush and talking down our war effort. Dems like Barack <censored> Obama and Senator Reid announced that we lost!

Please, what is inarguable is that now you want all Americans to come together now that a Liberal is going to be President but had no problem when Liberals refused to come together with Conservatives and Independents when the going got tough in Iraq.

Conservatives will oppose the new president just as Liberals opposed the outgoing president. And do you think that Liberals do not hate President Bush? The only difference being that we will not hope for defeat in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I seen this report myself but I have seen a video of Barack Obama stating that America has 57 states.

Now that's the kind of thing you'd expect at least some conservative pundits to snap up and publicise, and yet no one anywhere has said anything about it except you. Odd, that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

. . . Liberals refused to come together with Conservatives and Independents

Oh, so the GOP speaks for Independents now, does it? Not very likely.

Trust me. Palin was infinitely out of her league during this election and she's not likely to get any better in time for 2012. Quite honestly, I feel bad for her that she's being served up as the sacrificial lamb by your own GOP, but apparently, loyalty in the GOP is bought and sold on the cheap. I'd be worried if I were her and was asked to carry the mantle again. With friends like the GOP, who needs Democrats?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - if the Liberals have been hurting our war efforts so much, why are still in Iraq? We elected Obama because he has the better plan for winning the war, not losing.

"Liberals refused to come together with Conservatives and Independents when the going got tough in Iraq", huh? If that's true, it's because those Republicans in power showed how out of control they let the war get. But now, so many Republicans don't even want to wait until President Obama takes office to bash him. Really "supportive".

"Hoping for defeat in Iraq or Afghanistan" is a childish, emotional statement without basis in fact for Obama or any other good American and will therefore receive no more response from me than this sentence.

Conservatives may oppose President Obama if they choose; it's when they announce to the world how much they want to deliberately impede Obama before he even sets foot in the White House that I take exception to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bill Maher, at his best:

And finally New Rule, now that you've lost republicans have to agree not to waste everyone's time spending the next four years screaming for investigations of Barack Obama over made up bulls#*t. Let's not kid ourselves. The hard core republican base is like a stalker. Rejection just makes them crazier. You think matt drudge was a vindictive p#%ck before. His headline Wednesday morning was Senior Citizen and Woman Beaten By Black Man. [...] And wait till you see ann coulter's new book How to Field Dress a Liberal.

You know there's loyal opposition and then there's just opposition. Let's not do the 90's again except for the part where we have peace and prosperity. You know there was an entire industry back then dedicated to making Bill Clinton's life miserable over expensive hair cuts and old land deals and the Lincoln Bedroom and getting blown. But this ain't the 90's.

We've got two wars, a melting planet and the only thing keeping the economy from total collapse is sarah palin's shopping sprees. But you know what phrase I don't want to hear used frivolousy for the next four years whenever Barack Obama forgets to put the kids in the car seat? Disrespect for the rule of law. dick cheney ordered prisoners tortured by name. That ship has sailed.

I don't want to hear sean hannity say that "Barack Obama announced that his daughters will be getting a puppy. A puppy from where? Probably a chihuaua that came in from Mexico illegally. And how do we know this isn't a dog that pals around with terriers?

You know when Obama starts a preemptive war and then makes torture our official policy and outs a CIA agent and purges US Attorneys and tries to put his cleaning lady on the Supreme Court and doesn't act on global warming and appoints at the head of FEMA an ex-d*#do salesman who was his college roommate, you know, that kind of stuff, believe me I'll be with you.

But until then I don't want to see republicans freaking out if Obama isn't singing the National Anthem loud enough or they find out he gets his suit's made in France. If he puts a moon roof in the Presidential limo, he's not making himself Feuhrer. He's just trying to get the smell of stupidity out of the seats. And mostly I don't want to hear about ACORN. Your guy lost by eight million votes. Just because you don't know any black people doesn't mean they don't exist.

So that's it. No Special Prosecutors. No trumped up investigations. If republicans really want to look into something for the next four years, my suggestion, try a mirror. (added emphasis mine)

Channeling my inner Jon Stewart, "Nailed it!"

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you, Taka, and thank you especially, Bill Maher!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they still got 56 million legitimate votes for McCain so I'm not sure how in tatters they really are. It was the perfect storm scenerio for the Democrats. The economy tanked at exactly the right time for the Democrats to seize upon. Now they have two years to turn the economy around before the Republicans start taking back seats and start grooming new conservatives for the oval office. Obama has his work cut out for him if he expects a second term.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its ok Republicans. With second prize comes a new theme song for you: Shattered by the Rolling Stones!

http://www.mp3lyrics.org/r/rolling-stones/shattered/

Shattered, shattered/ Love and hope and sex and dreams/ Are still surviving on the street/ Look at me, I'm in tatters!/ I'm a shattered/ Shattered

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CavemabLawyer- Stop gloating, are you Castro? Bwahahahaha.

The chickens will soon cone home to roost as America enters a depression and America befriends terrorists (Obama has experience at that). Tatters, Pah!!! We are strong, we will overcome and will be back in 2012 to save our nation from Obama's mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon Foster - Yes it was deliberate. I am saying that a party has to decide what it stands for. You included radical liberals in the list of other groups in the electorate. I don't think that the republican party has to bother itself trying to get the vote of every group -unless it takes the approach of changing people's opinions over to their side.

Also, you said that the GOP has to demonstrate that it isn't dominated by narrow minded, self-righteous jerks. I took it that you were implying that it already was dominated by such. I don't think it is.

As for your surprise about nobody pointing out the 57 states quote, well people have been screaming for months about the media bias. Many people saw that and noted that the 57 states quote by Obama wasn't shown more often, and that there weren't more Saturday Night Live parodies using that quote to show that Obama was an idiot. So it was noticed. Obama has had a dream ride so far.

I mentioned here before about Palin and the Africa quote. I find it hard to believe, and hope that the truth is that is was a slip, just like Obama's 57 states, and Biden telling a man in a wheelchair to stand up etc etc. But as this thread is about the GOP, my advice would be for the GOP to not attack each other. They just give ammo to the other side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRaAgain - First, a true conservative would never have gone along with the $700B bailout. How does it square logically or economically to give the government a bailout when it is the governmant that is tanking? This is especially so seeing how 8 out of 10 americans opposed this "bailut" in the first place.

Secondly, a true conservative would have IMMEDIATELY pointed out and exposed the Democrat-cotrolled congress of 1978, 1994, and 2006 which effectively deregulated the financial sector, opened up the "sea cocks" as it were for their dubious lending schemes, and declared them solvent and safe for the public to invest in, not to mention several key Democrat Senators -- including the Democrat Nominee for President -- as not only receiving huge campaign donations from them, but also legislating more financial support for them and less federal oversight.

Thirdly, a true conservative would never have let pass Obama's connections to domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhornan, and his relationships with Luis Farakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright ,and foreign terrorist organizatiosn and supporting countries' endorsement of him for President.

Fourthly, Joe the Plumber and Juan the Constructionaman and Obama's "Spread the Wealth" comments would have been on TV 24/7, exposing Obama for what he really: a tax and spend socialist who plans to make the USA itno a welfare state.

Fifthly, the Surge Strategy, which has worked, and Obama has deined success to and opposed form the beginning would also have been a talking point and a target.

Sixthly, his stances on and opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Two-thirds to three-quarters of the US Population are against Abortion on Demand as a means of birth control. McCain shojld have been all over obama about this, since the former claimed to be pro-life, but he never once brought up the subject, either in the debates or on commercials.

Seventhly, Obama's glaring lack of experience. Less thant four years in the US Senate, and his relatively short time in the Illinois Statehouse should have been a major target for McCain, but he barely touched on this theme as well.

Finally, Biden's total gaffes in the debate with Gov. Palin, radio and tV interviews, and the "Obama's going to be tested" thing woudl have also been on TV 24/7.

The glaring reality is, for all his fluster and bluster, Sen. McCain campaigned no differently than Sen. Dole twelve years ago. There's a time to gentlemanly and gentle, and there's a time to be gentlemanly and take the cotton-pickn' gloves off. McCain, unfortunately, was the former all the way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon Foster - Yes it was deliberate. I am saying that a party has to decide what it stands for. You included radical liberals in the list of other groups in the electorate.

Um, sorry to be picky, but do you think you could spell my last name properly? It is written down. Anyway. By taking out everyone else that I mentioned you make it look as if I'm implying something that I certainly did not intend to, i.e. that Republicans ought to be courting the radical left. Just to clarify my point, I do not think this is even remotely feasible but they do need to win over the independents and centrists in order to be electible.

Also, you said that the GOP has to demonstrate that it isn't dominated by narrow minded, self-righteous jerks. I took it that you were implying that it already was dominated by such. I don't think it is.

I was implying nothing of the sort. You could well be right, but I strongly contend that the party has consistently given the impression of pandering to its most right-wing and social conservative elements. For instance, what sort of message does it send when someone like Sarah Palin can get a VP nomination? All she seemed to be there to do was mobilise the right-wing base. My point being that while they may not all be self-righteous, patronising, knee-jerk reactionaries the Republicans have pretty much allowed themselves to be painted that way. Just another ingredient in a recipe for electoral disaster.

As for the Obama thing, I really did think I'd heard just about everything the Republicans could throw at him - elitism, socialism, lack of executive experience, not wearing a flag pin, Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, elitism, the comment about bitter people clinging to guns and religion, etc. You can't say it wasn't reported, even if the media did decide they liked Obama better. I have actually found one reference to the 57 states gaffe but I don't think anyone made a big issue out of it, not even the McCain campaign. They might have been anticipating getting some of McCain and Bush's verbal slips thrown back in their faces if they'd tried.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To all Obama supporters:

Enjoy your victory while the euphoria/Obama's honeymoon lasts. It may not last too long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blue_Tiger,

Thanks for taking the time to repond to my question. My thoughts, for what they're worth:

First, a true conservative would never have gone along with the $700B bailout.

This I agree with. The $700 billion bailout certainly does not fit with any conservative fiscal image that I’m familiar with. Also, the number of American’s opposing the bailout is actually closer to 55%, not 80%, at least according to exit polls conducted on Election Day. But your point is valid. A majority of Americans aren’t thrilled with the bailout, nor should they be.

Secondly, a true conservative would have IMMEDIATELY pointed out and exposed the Democrat-controlled congress of 1978, 1994, and 2006 which effectively deregulated the financial sector . . .

Actually, de-regulation fits more in line with a traditional conservative’s desire for less government interference with the free market

Thirdly, a true conservative would never have let pass Obama's connections to domestic terrorists . . .

Quite honestly, this really has less to do with “true conservatism” and more to do with Neo-Conservatism exemplified by the recent, albeit decade-long GOP strategy of utilizing guilt-by-association accusations to discredit political adversaries. If anything, this is more in line with present-day Neo-Neo-Conservatism.

I could argue that a true conservative would never have let George Bush’s close relationship with the royal family of Saudi Arabia go unexplored, particularly considering 15 of the 19 were Saudis. Or the U.S. government’s decision to allow Osama Bin Laden’s relatives to leave the U.S. shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center. Or that Dick Cheney, while working for Halliburton, was involved in an oil project being negotiated with the Taliban. And yet, all of these facts were left largely untouched by conservatives, despite the number of eyebrows each issue raised.

Fourthly, Joe the Plumber and Juan the Constructionaman and Obama's "Spread the Wealth" comments would have been on TV 24/7 . . .

This too would have been a likely “true” conservative response, with some exceptions. While traditional conservatives would not have been happy with the idea of lower taxes for middle- and lower-income Americans, coinciding with higher taxes for upper-income Americans, the liberal application of the label “socialist” to politicians who seek to adjust the national tax burdens went out of fashion with Joe McCarthy in the ’50s, and furthermore hasn’t really panned out as the wholesale destruction of “God and country” that Neo-Neo-Conservatives incessantly warned about. The free market has continued to thrive in America, despite increases in the tax burden of the wealthy over the past decade.

Fifthly, the Surge Strategy, which has worked, and Obama has deined success to and opposed form the beginning would also have been a talking point and a target.

This, again, has to do with Neo-Conservatism and a relatively recent interpretation of protecting national security through any means, including pre-emptive action. That’s not traditional conservatism.

Sixthly, his stances on and opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. McCain shojld have been all over [O]bama about this . . .

Again, a relatively new development, politically speaking, arising from Roe vs. Wade in ’73. Neo-Conservative seized upon this flashpoint and sought a venue for voicing their opposition to abortion via traditional conservatism, an ideal vehicle for extending the definition of “traditional family” to unborn children.

On a side note, in response to a 2003 CNN/Gallup poll asking the quiestion, "Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy?" 66% of Americans answered that they believed it should be legal in the first trimester.

Seventhly, Obama's glaring lack of experience. Less thant four years in the US Senate, and his relatively short time in the Illinois Statehouse should have been a major target for McCain, but he barely touched on this theme as well.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism, “True” or otherwise. It has to do with politics. That Democrats jumped all over Sarah Palin for her resume is proof of this.

Finally, Biden's total gaffes in the debate with Gov. Palin, radio and TV interviews, and the "Obama's going to be tested" thing woudl have also been on TV 24/7.

Again, this has virtually nothing to do with “true-conservatism” and everything to do with being politically smart. Again, see Sarah Palin’s thrashing in Liberal media outlets for what I mean.

I suspect you are working with a far newer definition of "true conservative" than I am, which may explain the discrepancies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude says:

We elected Obama because he has the better plan for winning the war, not losing.

McCain was ahead in all of the polls until the wall street collapse in September. No one can seriously believe that Obama had any intention to actively try to win in Iraq. When the going got tough, he wanted to bail. He wants to withdraw on a set time table regardless of the situation. That's what he campiagned on. Winning or losing is not important to him. Increasing government intrusion into peoples lives, growing government, and moving the country to the Left are his goals. If Bush's surge in Iraq had failed, he would not have come up with any new strategy for success. His strategy was withdrawal (ie. giving up, surrendering, waving the white flag).

He has stated that he wants to win in Afghanistan. Ironically, he has stated that he supports a surge in troops there. This would logically mean that he thinks we can win in Afghanistan. I applaud him for that. However, it just shows that he was using the easier war as a foil to attack Bush and Republicans for not giving up on Iraq because it was much harder. Now that he is President-elect, what is his "exit strategy" for Afghanistan? Victory? He hasn't said.

If that's true, it's because those Republicans in power showed how out of control they let the war get.

Such a statment can be made about most Presidents who served during war. No matter how confident one may be of success, anything can happen in war. What counts is what happens when the going gets tough. Democrats showed their true colors by wanting to give up at the first signs of difficulties while Republicans sought for solutions and a new strategy to win. It is not hard to imagine that should things get difficult in Afghanistan, Obama and Democrats in general will just give up and the consequences be damned.

"Hoping for defeat in Iraq or Afghanistan" is a childish, emotional statement without basis in fact for Obama or any other good American and will therefore receive no more response from me than this sentence.

To the contrary, it is just a matter of public record that Democrats were not in the least interestd in succeeding in Iraq. The Democrats supported a cut off of funds for the military at the exact time when the Democrat party should have been unifying around our forces to get through the most difficult period in the war. That is what makes me the most upset about my own country. How can so many people give up on their country and use that difficult situation for partisan gain? It was a sickening display of crass self-interest that those who care about defeating international terrorism and state sponsors of terrorism will not forget. Obama was a part of that.

Conservatives may oppose President Obama if they choose; it's when they announce to the world how much they want to deliberately impede Obama before he even sets foot in the White House that I take exception to them.

Such sentiments fall on deaf ears. How any person from the Left could make such an assertion with any sincerity at all after that was done to oppose Bush is simply not worth considering with any seriousness. Conservatives will support America's war efforts no matter who the President is. However, when it comes to domestic issues, it is in the best interests of America's future that he failed completely. No more socialism! We got enough of that from Bush to be quite honest. I didn't support Bush's big spending and I won't support Obama's either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon_Foston says;

Now that's the kind of thing you'd expect at least some conservative pundits to snap up and publicise, and yet no one anywhere has said anything about it except you. Odd, that.

Odd isn't it? Obviously, it was reported by someone or no one would have known that Obama thinks that are 57 states. But just imagine if McCain had said it. Can you seriously doubt that it would not have been highly publicized? Most major media outlets in the US are no different from the BBC. They have an agenda and they use (and not use) whatever furthers that agenda. Even Liberals can see what it but will not push for any objectively as it benefits them. You can see that in the Fairness Doctrine that will undoubtedly be pushed in the coming Congress. Free speech is irrelevent as long as the ends justify the means.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blue_Tiger,

Your analysis of McCains missed opportunies in your 08:27 PM post are very good. McCain let so many things slide that Democrat's would have no qualms of exploiting. Jeremiah Wright is the most distressing to me. McCain did not attack the racism of the Left because he was afraid that the media would gin up attacks against him on the issue of race - somehow. The Left was going after McCain for opposing the MLK holiday as it that makes him a racist. That went away once Mr. USofKK-A got pulicised. Then all of the sudden we should get beyond race. I still remember the Democrats add against Bush in 2000 that link him to the dragging death of a black man in Texas. It was a despictable add yet the media let it go without calling them out of it.

What has just occurred in this election is a reaffirmation that racism in America continues to be tolerated. As long as that racism is targeted at whites. Obama participated in a religeous organzation for two decades that is blatantly racist and practices an ideology of black superiority. Yet the media was not at all curious about it. Obama has never been forced to explain why he sat in a racist church for all those years. He was never forced to explain his association with a race-centric philosophy. Imagine if McCain was a member of a white-centric church and if he had been associated with it for years and years. The media would attacked him as a racist - and with justification. I am angered by the double standard. This double standard makes an assumption of racism for whites and does not to the same for non-whites. I have never lived in an America in which the government was racist against blacks because I was born after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Discrimination has only been shifted to whites and in particular, white males. I have seen it - it is institutionalized throughout our society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However, it just shows that he was using the easier war as a foil to attack Bush and Republicans for not giving up on Iraq because it was much harder.

As far as I'm concerned, you've just invalidated yourself by referring to Afghanistan as the "easier war". Talk to a US troop who's been there; you need the education we can provide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack -

Discrimination has only been shifted to whites and in particular, white males. I have seen it - it is institutionalized throughout our society.

I can definitely agree with you on this point, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most anti-Bush people say they support the war in Afghanistan but not the one in Iraq, but not many can articulate why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - Sorry about the spelling.

I still disagree that the Palin pick was ONLY to pander to social conservatives. If you remember back, after her first speech at the convention, many people were impressed. A young, female governor with an 80% approval rating is not absurd. There aren't a lot of them around. If they were no Couric interview, no leaking about the shopping (and we still don't know the truth of that), and no SNL parodies, she would have been seen very differently. Obviously, we don't know, but the election result could have been very different. Then McCain would have been seen as a genius. Given that she was not up to speed on some issues, if I were running the campaign, I would have had her do speeches, then do the rounds of "favorable" interviews while schooling her up. Elections are a game. It's packaging. You didn't see Obama on Fox and Rush Limbaugh often.

And Wolfpack, you are right. McCain was way too soft. Nice guys don't always win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack,

Regarding Obama's "57 states" gaffe:

"But just imagine if McCain had said it. Can you seriously doubt that it would not have been highly publicized?"

You know and I know Obama was tired when he said it. It was a simple mistake. Some of which McCain has made a few, and was NOT chastised or ridiculed for. In particular, I'm recalling when he mistakenly told Pennsylvanians that Obama was right about them being racist. It wasn't because he thought it was true. It was because the campaign trail is a tiring one. He simple misspoke. No one from the “evil” Liberal media went to town on it. It was in the news cycle for all of half a day, then forgotten.

The amount of attention the GOP devotes to simple misstatements, or rather WISHES Americans would spend on simple misstatements would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps if they had put all that wasted energy into a coherent winning strategy, they might have fared better this election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack,

To the contrary, it is just a matter of public record that Democrats were not in the least interestd in succeeding in Iraq.

Dig that public record up. I'd love to see the part where it says, "We Democrats are not interested in succeeding in Iraq." Go ahead. I defy you to find it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still disagree that the Palin pick was ONLY to pander to social conservatives. If you remember back, after her first speech at the convention, many people were impressed. A young, female governor with an 80% approval rating is not absurd. There aren't a lot of them around. If they were no Couric interview, no leaking about the shopping (and we still don't know the truth of that), and no SNL parodies, she would have been seen very differently.

Palin's introduction to the campaign did indeed have a noticeable effect, and I agree that it looked as if she'd swing things round in McCain's favour. Even then, though, it was fairly clear that she was firmly in the social conservative camp. The Katie Couric interview followed, and Tina Fey wouldn't have had nearly as much to parody if it hadn't been for that. As for the shopping bills, I kind of get the feeling that McCain's advisers had already seen the way the wind was blowing and were setting Palin up to take the fall even then.

And Wolfpack, you are right. McCain was way too soft. Nice guys don't always win.

If only they'd been more negative, eh? I think they were quite negative enough, and that when they saw that it wasn't achieving they realised piling on more was not going to help. I've heard the argument that McCain should have laid into Obama with the Jeremiah Wright connection, but I personally believe it was tactically right not to do so. We heard plenty about it during the Democratic Primaries, and Obama still secured the nomination.

In 2012 a successful Republican candidate will need to move beyond Karl Rove's tactics and clearly indicate how he or she can govern the country better. This time round the swiftboating just didn't work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most anti-Bush people say they support the war in Afghanistan but not the one in Iraq, but not many can articulate why.

You know, I think I can see what the broad overall plan was in Iraq: secure the oil and gain an ally in the Middle East that isn't Saudi or Israeli, thus lessening American dependence on difficult alliances with two nations diametrically oppposed to each other (or am I wrong about this? I'm speculating that the House of Saud isn't especially fond of Israel). I think it makes sense, but they had to go and dress it up as something else - first it was a war to get rid of WMDs that weren't there anyway, and then it was to spread freedom and democracy. Moreover, whilst they were lying about the reasons for the war they were also completely bungling the way it was being conducted. It was only when Gen. Petraeus got involved that the situation began to turn around a bit.

As for Afghanistan, that's where Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies were all based. Now of course a lot of them are in Pakistan, including Bin Laden himself, probably. Wasn't the whole war on terror thing about dealing with them in the first place?

All in all, it's another issue that the 2012 Republican candidate will need coherent and sensible views on that are very different from those of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Unconditionally stating that Bush did the right thing might not go down very well with the voters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yasukuni -

Most anti-Bush people say they support the war in Afghanistan but not the one in Iraq, but not many can articulate why.

Well, here are my thoughts: If the leaders, chiefly Osama bin Laden, are located somewhere on the Afghan/Pakistan border, the majority of our military efforts should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq is where the foot soldiers are; Afghan/Pakistan is where the enemy leaders are. What better way to win a war than by taking out the enemy's leaders?

Seems pretty articulate to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just get over it you Obama haters! The McCain camp simply failed, period. They lost the election......

Signed,...sealed,...and delivered.

Congratulations ObaBi '08!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAF, I agree with you actually.

I personally couldn't agree with going into Iraq in the first place because I doubted it would all be over as quickly as people thought.

My point about "many people" not being able to explain why they oppose it is that I think the public has little problem morally or philosophically with a war when its short and casualties are few.

Maybe not for people as intelligent and articulate as yourself, but if the relative difficulties were reversed for those two countries, you would have had people saying they could understand being in Iraq but not in Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - There is a difference between being tough and being negative.

McCain could have been much tougher in terms of pointing out the Democrats part in the reasons for the economic meltdown. If you don't know what that was, than there is one big evidence of media bias.

Also, what about Obama's negative campaign? He went on and on about hope for an AMerica where there is no black or white etc. What? He is a senator running for VP, went to Harvard, his wife and he both lawyers, with her having a dream job, and the Bush administration had Powell and Rice in two of the most powerful positions on the planet.

But some people are never satisfied. Jeremiah Wright has already come out saying that nothing has changed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain could have been much tougher in terms of pointing out the Democrats part in the reasons for the economic meltdown. If you don't know what that was, than there is one big evidence of media bias.

I'm not so sure that focusing on whatever the Democrats did in the past would really have helped him build a much stronger case against Obama.

Also, what about Obama's negative campaign?

In other words, "if you think our campaign was negative, just look at theirs." Sorry, that wouldn't get me out to vote for someone. I expect candidates to be tough on each other, and I expect negativity. When it overshadows their policy manifestos then I think it's a problem. But for the record, I know the Democrats managed to come out with some pretty offensive stuff. John Kerry's comment about McCain needing incontinence pants, for instance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Also, what about Obama's negative campaign?"

First off, I agree with Simon. If someone does a better job at doing the same thing you are doing, you don't really have a moral leg to stand on.

Or in other words, I'll take smart negative over stupid stupid any day of the week.

On Monday, they shriek Obama is Muslim. On Tuesday, they say Obama's Christian preacher for 20 years is racist.

Well...which is it? If mccain's camp couldn't keep their smears from contradicting, how can they expect the electorate to believe a word of it.

Then there was the mccain camp's assault on common sense. Obama says, one way to cut down on oil usage is to keep your car tires properly inflated. The mccain camp then proceeds to mock that bit of common sense in the media and then spend money passing out tire gauges mocking Obama. Whenever you are on the other side of common sense, you are on the side of stupid.

Then there's the William Ayers thing. republicans screaming guilt by association about William Ayers after not raising a peep over the bush family's ties to the house of saud, plus bush jr. inviting the taliban to Texas is well...blatantly disingenuous. People saw through it. The big problem republicans are having is that none of their smears stuck because they either contradicted their other smears, were blatantly partisan or were flat out stupid.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"On Monday, they shriek Obama is Muslim"."If McCain's camp couldn't keep their smears from contradicting.."

Who did? McCain? Palin? The GOP reps ?? Come on, who said that? Who "shrieked" that Obama is Muslim?

That is a smear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yasukuni,

Who shrieked about Obama being Muslim?

Talk radio's michael savage, newsmax.com's david patten, the traditional values coalition, g. gordon libby, pajamas media, fox news, The Tennessee republican party, the National Black republican association and sean hannity, to name a few.

Any other questions?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yasukuni, I just re-read what I posted earlier. You are correct to call me out. No one in the mccain camp referred to Sen. Obama as a Muslim. I miss-typed. My intent was to state the GOP and the faction within the MSN biased against Sen. Obama when I mentioned the contradicting smears, not the mccain camp.

Thank you for correcting me.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka. You just gained my respect. Probably doesn't mean much to you of course! But not many people in this world can do what you just did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No one in the mccain camp referred to Sen. Obama as a Muslim.

There were reports that handlers of the beleaguered McCain were urging him to use the h-word (Hussein), but McCain had enough class not to go there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain could have been much tougher in terms of pointing out the Democrats part in the reasons for the economic meltdown. If you don't know what that was, than there is one big evidence of media bias.

If McCain hadn't been on of the Keating Five, he could have hammered the Dems harder on the financial mess. As a Keating Five poster boy, however, he didn't have much lattitude on this. A beautiful example of "what goes around comes around." He got what he deserved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie. Point taken, and I suppose that explains his reluctance. He has pretty well paid his dues on that episode though I think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yasukuni,

Thank you. Your words DO mean a lot.

I'm married therefore saying, "I'm sorry. I was wrong." has become a way of life. ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka. Thanks man.

Not every married person can say sorry though. Take my wife! (eh ..not literally of course!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites