Is it 2012 yet? :P

“At some point, as liberating as it is from mainstream news, the blogosphere can be a very toxic place.”

The blogosphere is a tea party compared to liberal academia, and an Obama victory is not going to make progressives any more tolerant than they have been for the last few decades.

Amen, Wordsmith.
Bitter in defeat? Yes I am. But I am going to wave Old Glory just a little bit higher.
God bless America and may God bless President Obama.
This country is going to need our own collective prayers.

Well said , Wordsmith

God bless America, let us hope for the best.

If Democracy can survive this guy, then it can survive anything.

At least now we are cleansed from the sins of our past (slavery and racism). That card is now out of the deck.

Really, I don’t think the people celebrating have any idea of what’s been lost tonight–good and bad.

At least it was quick and definitive. I don’t think I could have handled a long drawn out process–as the process getting to this point has been unnecessarily long and drawn out.

And maybe for four years (or two) the whining can stop. Sick of the whining am I.

And my one prediction for 2009? The View will be cancelled!

Your kinder sentiments made me feel good, just like McCain’s concession and Obama’s triumph made me feel good.

There are enough angry people in this blog that I don’t think I’ll be back again very soon. I admit I’ve been more than a little snarky myself.

I will try to inspire the better part of myself. I wish that all of you do, too.

Be cool.

@David101: Nice of you to make an ass of yourself. Now I know why I did not want Obama to win.

David101,

We are ALL losers tonight, you included. You are just too brainwashed and perhaps stupid to realize it. But you will. You will as you see your bills and taxes blow sky high. You will as terrorism increases world wide. You will as freedoms go away in the United States.

I always wonder why the left is not bothered by the fact the fact that when they win, our enemies celebrate.

@Craig:

Your tolerance is beyond believing! Incredible!

Thank you, Craig.

It’s compliments like this that makes it easier to tolerate you.

I am posting this as I feel it is pertinent to the Republican’s failure to win this the election, (and hopefully for consideration of party rebuilding for the 2010 Congressional and 2012 Presidential elections). Sara Palin was a hit with many small town folk because she represented and appealed to the values of middle-class Main Street Americans. For the Republican Party to survive, it must return to the needs of main-street. These are people that the Republicans have taken for granted. For too long now the Republican Party has not listened to average Americans. It has instead embraced the Globalist agenda of world-capitalism. While both parties have globalists in their ranks, I believe that is why the Republicans lost support amongst the middle class.

Yes, moving factories overseas has been great for corporate profits and the stock market, but the loss of these jobs has hurt the middle class badly. Nor were they replaced with the promised “high-tech” jobs. While it is true that both parties have supported this, it is the Republican Party leaders who have mostly spoke-out in favor of globalization, and thus the Republicans became the party whom the people who had lost their jobs, and small business men (who can not compete with cheap foreign labor,) logically, thereby associate with as being most deserving to receive their ire and blame. The Washington support of Illegal immigration, voiced quite stubbornly by Bush and McCain, also convinced the small town voters that the Republicans were not listening to their cries. The bank bail-out and it’s affect on Wall street (plus their effects on the average voter’s retirement accounts, home values, and the Federal deficit) were the final straws that broke the middle-class American’s back. Both parties are guilty, but it is the Republicans whom small town America blames the most, because they have generally supported the GOP, only to be abandoned in favor of the policy desires of Wall Street and big corporations.

If the Republicans want to win back the support they have lost, they have to start to listen to the middle class, or they will have learned nothing about this election. It is time to invest in Main Street, support local manufacturing and the small towns which have always been the Republican’s base. Small town America works best when the money circulates around town. This circulation causes small towns to prosper and grow. When the jobs, people and the money leave town, so does the good they did. Eventually the towns begin to die, and the out-of-work move to the cities to find jobs. As these metropolises grow, they tend to turn the people towards the Democratic party because the voters believe that the Democrats will help them in their squalor. The Republicans need to take action to help put American workers back to work. A service economy does not build wealth because it doesn’t create things of value. We need an investment in productivity and policies that will rebuild Main Street and small town America.

“Let’s not do to him what liberal Democrats have done to President Bush for 8 years.”

Why not Wordsmith?

It worked didn’t it?

Dems demonized Republicans, Conservatives, President Bush, Sarah Palin and John McCain and as you can see they are STILL at it.

I never thought a campaign of hate would succeed but it has. Only too late did I realize what a powerful motivator such emotions are.

So then, let it be said that these are the rules which Democrats have written for how to win campaigns.

I do not intend to go to the vile lengths that the hatemongers did to acquire power. But neither do I intend to once again support a candidate or party that insists there is some moral high ground in losing as a result of fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

Near total opposition to Obama and the Democrat majority. Intense burning criticism of their every failure, every misstep, is the order of the day.

This isn’t hate, but a burning righteous fire which will sweep away the lies of Obama and the liars in the Democrat Party as they are exposed.

Now is not the time for accommodation or appeasement. Now is the time to steel our souls to the battle that must be fought again and WON!

“I want to defeat them, but defeat them in the realm of ideas. ” (Stick)

Good luck! Leftists are allergic to realm of ideas. They only want a goverment to take care of them in every fields of their life.

No, this will not work with them, they are idiots, they don’t understand reality. If this is your only suggestion, can I tell you that you will lose one more time. You annot find somebody with a knife with words ans ideas. Get real! You have to fight them on same level they fight, with equal arms, otherwise, you lose.

No you repubs still don’t get it!!

America has changed.

It is no longer a center-right Country.

Although I will tell ya this!

Trust me when I say, it is less likely that Obama will go far left.

There is a reason why so many republicans voted for him.

He is more Center-right when it comes to governing.

I seriously dought Barack Obama will go far left.

If he does, you can hold me and the rest of my party accountable for it!!

Just as we held YOUR party accountable for Bush.

But, really, I dought he will go far left!!!!

And that is coming from a liberal.

Hopefully that will make yall feel better. If not, O….well.

President Elect-Barack Obama! 08-16!

I support Obama, but God only know … he will lose the election … it is my prediction

There will be at least two years to decide whom we as Republicans will ask to take the helm and future leadership of this party. Before you decide how you will vote/support financially etc., consider the congressional landscape.

There are no GOP members of the House from the North Eastern section of the country.

The GOP is shrinking into a party of Extremists from only a small part of the country, the South East. We encourage anti-intellectualism at our party’s peril. We alienate the urban areas at our party’s peril. We call those on the coasts Elitists and damn ourselves to irrelevance in future governance of this country.

Check the map. 1/3 of this country’s population lives in PA and points north. Every one of those states went even bluer over the last four years.

I have not been shy in expressing this opinion on this blog in the past. But now look around you and realize that it is not one guy pounding away at his key board in Florida. Check the map. Compare it to HW Bush’s map. Compare it to Reagan’s map. If we continue to shrink into a smaller and smaller area of the country we will surrender to the Democratic Party forever.

Palin 2012? Clinton will win.

Jindal or Crist or more likely – Mitt 2012? A much more likely road to victory.

Class and professionalism:

If Obama is going to succeed, he is going to succeed because of us. If Obama is going to fail, it should be in spite of our best efforts to help him succeed.

I think it will be interesting to see if the Republicans decide Palin is the face of the future or if they will realize she is the apotheosis of the past. It could be a rather nasty fight between the rank and file social conservatives (who may have found a champion) and the intellectual elite fiscal conservatives (who would rather go with someone who actually has a chance of winning).

@Craig: So weshould become a Banana Republic. Have the Military take over???? We are a nation that fights over ideas and we do not have armed conflicts every time there is an election. If you do not win the minds and hearts of the people, how are you going to rule. This is a war of ideas and the Left won this time because of the MSM propaganda, a bad candidate and President Bush’s failure to defend himself.

David, Fit Fit, obama will be a one term president unless he has all his programs start after his term is up. Even then will be a one termer. The left will run wild as they have no self control-which you both demonstrate-America will realize what they have done and boot carter on steroids and PCP from office. Gloat now, it won’t last.

Thanks, Hard Right. Keep it coming.

How am I angry at you for thinking you “get it”?

Do us a favor and become an independant. We don’t need gutless wonders in the party.

Yes, because the “hard right” will win future elections with a smaller tent party.

Hard Right –

YOU are the type of knuckle dragging Conservative that cost us the election. If you are that upset jump off a bridge or something.

It simply is not as dark a day as many painting it. Frankly I believe that the reason that the Republican Party Brand is in the toilet is because of the intolerant extremists in the party. Bush and Rove drove that for years and the Palin pick (as I have opined ad nauseum) was validation that the angry right did not value the other 65% of the country. Until that changes you will continue to be frustrated because you will continue to be marginalized.

Get used to it or get with it dude.

Cent, you and word are why we lost. You think moving to the center will win. Guess what geniuses? It didn’t work. Neither of you are smart enough to see that. Please leave the party. You serve no purpose other than to hinder it.
The fact is people with the guts to fight, like me are the future of the party. Extremist? LOL. Yes, how dare I insist on fighting obama at every step and protect my country. I’m supposed to just bend over like you two. Yeah, that’s worked so well for the GOP. Take your eletitest attitude to the dem party where it belongs.

To those trying to minimize what obama will do to the country, that’s called denial. Medved was right-some damage will be permanent. I understand that. you don’t or can’t.

I believe BO will (1) overextend by far to the left, creating a backlash (there is no historical reason based on his history to imagine he will suddenly try bi-partisanship and reach across the aisle), and (2) race tension will become much greater in America as blacks will take BO’s election as a signal that they are free to seek retribution against whites for all their perceived grievances. (I live in a large city (appx 300,000) in the South that suffered white on black racism in the past, but which is now controlled by the majority black population; from day one until the present the black government leaders, almost without exception, have used their power in a discriminatory fashion as if to exact revenge upon whites for the wrongs they (or more likely their fathers) suffered in the past). I believe the next 4 years will be dark. I hope I am wrong, and that BO shocks me and ends up being the greatest President ever. But I at this time have no rational basis for such a hope; my only hope is in God, and perhaps He has allowed the results for this purpose–so we may learn that we reap what we sow and have put our trust in vain and empty hopes and promises.

Centfla: I seem to recall you strongly supported the candidate who got us into this mess in the first place. So, forgive me if I ignore your advice that we go further down the road of compromise and accommodation with our political enemies.

If we had followed your line of thinking after losing to Carter in 1976 we never would have nominated Reagan.

Conservativism wins every time it is tried.

It’s about time we try it again.

And as for Wordsmith: I don’t think we are that far apart on the matter under discussion. If I haven’t made it clear that I don’t advocate a campaign of lies and smears would you like me TO SHOUT IT OUT SEVERAL MORE TIMES??????

Again, I will be so very criticial of every wrongheaded move Obama/Reid/Pelosi make. My criticism will be harsh, scathing and relentless. I will fight these bastards every step of the way.

My goal is not to tear the country apart but to tear away the curtains that conceal the truth about who and what these people are.

I realize that living where you do surrounded by brainwashed lefties it’s often easier to avoid conflict and choose less aggressive tactics. But based on my experience that is a mistake.

The lesson from 2008 is that we need to fight HARDER, and make our voices LOUDER, not softer!

@CentFla: HUH. Without Palin, McCain would have lost by much more. He has stuck his finger in the eyes of Conservatives for a long time and without them aRepublican has no chance of winning.

@Mike’s America: I think we are closer too.

So you would have voted for whom Stix?

McCain Snowe is a winning ticket. McCain Ridge would have won PA, OH and other states. How can you not see that?

You may have voted for someone else, but most of the country is in the middle. And what you do not understand is that if you want the GOP to win more seats in both houses and another Presidential election is that you must appeal to the broad middle of the American voters. There simply are not enough voters that feel like you and HR amd MA.

You must support a larger tent or you need to follow Bob Barr into the same part of the electorate as Ron Paul and Ralp Nader.

Centfla: There are a number of factors that are responsible for yesterday’s defeat. Primarily among them was Obama’s refusal to adhere to his public financing of campaigns pledge that allowed him to raise AND SPEND more money than ever before in history. In Florida Obama is reported to have spent $39 million which is almost half what McCain spent on his entire campaign.

McCain choose to remain with the public financing system he long supported.

He is ultimately responsible for the consequences of that decision. That and the boneheaded idea of suspending his campaign over the financial crisis then walking into the trap the Democrat’s set for him.

The loss had nothing to do with a rejection of conservatism. None whatsoever. And if you think it did, do me a favor and go re-register as a Democrat.

I have to get some work done today so please do not consider any further replies for a while my ducking a point.

But HR and MA – you’re both asking me to leave the party while complaining about getting fewer votes is an oxymoron. It is exactly why we are in this position.

If McCain lost because he did not spend enough money then why did Chris Shays lose? Was it also McCain’s fault that Orlando lost two of the three incumbent GOP congressmen? Is that why Coleman can’t beat Al Franken?

The brand is damaged and that is why McCain lost. The brand lost yesterday and took Mac with it. You can blame Mac all you want for not winning the presidency but the problem is much, much deeper than that and until you two recognize that and stop telling people that they are not welcome in “your party” the GOP will be relegated to the same states that seceeded 140 years ago because they didn’t get their way either.

off to the grindstone.

Sigh. Cent, you just don’t get it. The brand is damaged because of RINOs and wimps. It’s bad enough the media openly campaigned for obama, but it didn’t help when the people I’ve named acted like liberals or let liberal lies go unchecked. Not to mention so-called Conservatives (RINOs really) publicly bashing Palin-the future of the Party. I am sick of wimps who pat themselves on the back for not fighting back, while looking down their noses at those of us who do. (wordsmith)

McCain is mpartly to blame for his loss, but he is a symptom of the illness. By trying to be all things to all people, we became nothing to everyone. McCain thought the dems were reasonable, honest, patriotic, and well meaning. He failed to recognize that they are none of those things. That part of the loss is on him. Letting RINOs and wimps pick our candidates is on us.

No Cent, moving further to the left was not the answer and never has been.

@Wordsmith: What do you expect to come from someone who thinks “aint” is using proper English? Uneducated, and showing it.

Now, not only is our country divided, the republican party fighting within themselves. That is why republicans lost. Does not give me much hope about unity. EVERYONE NEEDS TO EXCEPT IT, AND MOVE FORWARD. Give him a chance to show us he can lead us. Just like we did to Bush, untill he proved us wrong. America has spoken, we are headed in a new direction, lets see what that is, then judge.

@ChrisG: I did

Voter
qualche volta lei non può andare d’accordo appena

Catherine

@Catherine: ew scary

@voter: ewwww scarier!

Word: If you insist on taking me out of context I will to correct the record.

After the passage you cite above I said:

I do not intend to go to the vile lengths that the hatemongers did to acquire power. But neither do I intend to once again support a candidate or party that insists there is some moral high ground in losing as a result of fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

And I never suggested you be as obnoxious as the left wingers in your area.

I pointed out that I prefer tactics that are more aggressive.

Aggressive doesn’t mean obnoxious and I did not mean to impugn your right wing bumper stickers.

I am pleased that you are in total agreement with me on this:

The lesson from 2008 is that we need to fight HARDER, and make our voices LOUDER, not softer!

Agreed, Mike.

@Catherine:

wordsmith
who ever said I was classy??

OH yea like the Finger bho gave to McCain and the finger bbho gave to Hillary??

Catherine

Sorry, Catherine. I didn’t mean to smear you as someone with class, rather than someone more like bho.

wordsmith
Lovers quarrel do we get to make up?

but bho now that is really low.

Just sick of the left.

Catherine

At least here lost in space don’t have to deal with them hope my country is still my country when I get back.

@Wordsmith: I actually liked Bush at first, untill I saw how the election went down, and even after that, I gave him the benefit of doubt, untill I saw how he handled the “war on terror”. It was more a path for his buddies to get contracts to “rebuild” Iraq, as well as a way for us to have our hands on their oil. If he were truly worried about weapons of mass destruction, then we would have long been in Iran and the like. Iraq was easier to invade and take over. Same mentality of a school age bully. It’s all about the money. Even if it were just about the oil, I would have respected him more, if he would have said, this is a move to keep America strong, since our worlds oil reserve will be depleted within 60-70 years. But no, he lied and lied and lied. Gave us different reasons why we went to war. It’s 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, no it’s Iraqi freedom.

@Catherine:

wordsmith
Lovers quarrel do we get to make up?

So long as you don’t expect me to bend over for you, and “take it”.

I suspect by way of strategy we are mostly in agreement, if not on tactics.

When it comes to foreign policy and national security, education, economy and dealing with poverty, etc., I certainly believe that liberal policies have the exact opposite effect of the desired result.

but bho now that is really low.

Just sick of the left.

Catherine

I know…

I don’t share in the jubilation expressed by those who voted for Obama. I feel like they are wrong on just about everything, and have been rewarded for it.

Already looking forward to 2010 and 2012.

@voter: WTF aret you talking about. War for oil. If we wanted theoil, why is it that Russia and China are the ones that got deals for oil in Iraq

You are delusional

I have to say the same to you, CentFl… INRE your #44

You suggest that McCain lost because he chose a VP more conservative than he is. It is only with the choice of Palin that the base rallied with even an iota of enthusiasm.

This totally belies the majority of the party being centrist. A choice of Lieberman… tho I actually like him… would have made me want to sit this one out.

I understand that Mata, my question is: Would McCain have won PA and OH and likely VA and NC with a more centrist pick like Ridge? You know he would have. It probably would have brought NV and IN with it and we would be having a very different conversation this morning.

I never liked the Palin pick and said so the very next morning for all of these reasons. A moderate Republican was the only one that was going to win this time around. The only way a far right candidate wins next time is if BO takes us too far to the left politically or if he lets Pelosi and Reid walk all over him. Otherwise I hope for backing of smart young candidates that will not alienate the entire east coast by calling them elitest.

The republican party has got to engage the coasts and urban areas or fade into irrelevance. Does Sarah Palin help that cause? No

This is a numbers game. McCain lost the election after the majority of GOP primary voters elected him BECAUSE of his centrist past. Then as he was face to face with BO he chose a running mate that alienated the center.

I understand also that many want a more right wing version of the party. That is fine, you can push for that, but you will continue to alienate the middle and that will lose votes and lose elections.

Incedently, I offered to walk Jaz/David or whatever through using Word for the grammar and spell check features… Guess that did not work either…

@CentFla: NO he would not have won any of the states. the MSM and Obama had tied him to Bush and this was a referendum on Bush. He could have picked anyone and lost, but it was closer because fo Palin. Conservatives were not going to vote for him without her. Ask a good portion of the conservatives if they would have voted enthusiastically for McCain if Palin was not his VP, and I bet you would get a pretty good response of no. Many would have voted 3rd party or not at all. None of the canadates were good candidates. I liked Guliani and the Fred, but after that it was all downhill.

I think Obama could have had a dog as a running mate and he would have won. Bush did not defend himself and deflated the conservatives,and McCain ran one of the worst campaigns that I have seen.

@MataHarley:

If you’re talking about a tail wagging critter lead around by a leash, I think he did, Stix….

Mata I think you are correct. Biden is a walking buffoon. Why did we not hear from him more, it could have helped us out at least a little bit.

Well, not to be yet more depressing, but… ponder this little ditty. Were Philip Berg to be successful in his lawsuit to disqualify Obama, and the SCOTUS agrees he has standing as a petitioner, you’d have to get used to “President Biden”.

ouch….

Then, if you really want to slip into slash your wrists depression, if something happened to ol slow Joe, it would be “President Pelosi”.

OMG… almost makes Obama seem the best of the three choices, eh? And on that note, I think “happy hour” may have to come early today…. LOL

Mac not moderate?

On what planet?

Mac was on the left side of the Conservative movement.

Palin is the only reason he did as well as he did. Palin’s candidacy boosted McCain.

@CentFla:

Mac would have gotten the Conservative vote anyway. Who else would they vote for? And do you really believe that they would have stayed home in stead?

yes many would have stayed at home like they did on 2006 or would have voted Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.

“If Obama is going to succeed, he is going to succeed because of us.” (Wordsmith)

Wow, I’m impressed! So now you will be helping Obama in succeeding with his socialist agenda. Are you sure you are a Republican or a conservative? You seem more like a leftist to me.

And you will help him stand for Muslims should the political winds turns ugly. WOW! And you will help him cut 25% of you military defense, even if this means that USA will hit the biggest downfall of History. Gee… you are really a nice guy!

Well Mike you are the expert at labeling people so how could I argue with you?

No, you are the guy who likes exit polls, so what kind of a drop off in Republican votes did McCain suffer relative to Bush? Probably not far from 89% I am guessing.

From your link –

McCain lost independents and moderates 60 to 39%.

That has been my point all along. He convinced nearly one in ten Republicans to vote for him but only four in ten independents and moderates.

but the people on this site claim he should have gone after the 1 in ten or the two in ten instead of the six in ten.

The stategery as Rush called it was appropriate, but poorly constructed and poorly delivered. If he had conviced the one in ten he still would have lost. If he got half of the independents that went for Obama he would have won.

Now we’re dealing with specifics from you, Cent…

CentFL: I guess I would have to ask back if you think Palin is a moderate Republican? Really? She has to have to lowest scores on the scale for Animal Rights, Women’s Choice, Guns and the Environment doesn’t she?

Well now, Cent… I guess if you’re using the liberal/progressive/socialist score card, she scores low. As for animal rights, women’s choice, guns and the environment, she’s a conservative. Not a radical. Just a conservative… not unlike Reagan.

It all depends on who’s judging. And I guess, considering you’re using the progressive/socialist judges… dad gum… the girl’s a radical. By that same definition, so am I. And so are most the conservatives you know, I guess. Wow… I’m “fringe”. Who woulda thunk it?

I guess I was not clear enough in the other posts that this election was not about the conservative voters, it was about the moderates. He folded to the base during the general when most candidates move to the middle.

~~~

Mac would have gotten the Conservative vote anyway. Who else would they vote for? And do you really believe that they would have stayed home in stead?

Well, now Cent… therein lies the quandry. “who else would they vote for, indeed”. I’ve oft said I don’t have a dog in this race. McCain was my less of two evils choice, and he redeemed himself only a tad in his final weeks… with picking Palin, and with initially standing up against the bailout on behalf of the majority of the American people. But he caved on the latter. And, unfortunately, like Bush, he tends to pick bad mouthpieces.

He missed the import of the Obama/Ayers connection being all about education and not Ayers past terrorism (not that his past is a plus). He missed the boat on the economy. He should have backed the American people’s opinion on the bailout. It would have passed without his support. But he would have joined the very few Congressional members that actually listen to their constituents, and aren’t pompous enough to assume they know more than we do.

Obama? He never moved to the middle. He became a left fringe “maverick” by staying on point with the “spread the wealth” message to the end. McCain was a weak version of Obama’s liberalism, alienating the conservatives. And ya know, he was supposed to be the *conservative candidate*. You and I disagree on a few things, but generally we are both more conservative than progressive/socialist. There are varying degrees in the GOP, just like in the DNC. Palin was that balancing factor.

Which brings me to the “therein lies the quandry”. I have a northern Cal friend who’s befuddled that his all GOP county voted in a seriously hard core Republican for the CA Congress, then turned around and voted Obama for President. Why is that, do you think?

I’ve been running that thru my mind all day. And I think I stumbled on my own answer via Mike’s Winston thread, discussing campaign money. And that is, voters were bribed. Obama promised cash to the lower income in exchange for their votes…. in essence, he spent nothing, but offered an Obama IOU, backed by the Taxpayer Bank of America.

McCain’s spending plans were not much less than Obama’s for national debt, however they were constructed to allow wealth creation – meaning businesses had more equity to expand.

This brings is back to why you thought McCain’s numbers started tanking… erroneously attributing them to Palin and not the economy.

To paraphrase the bald headed one… “it’s the economy, stupid”. If you were going to add to the national debt somewhat equally to the DNC big spender, did you want govt giveaways to you as a safety net? Or did you want a business tax advantage?

That would all depend on if you are an employee, or an employer.

Which means that GOP county was less “conservative” in the base of self responsibility, and more “progressive socialist” that – if McCain’s going to spend similar to Obama – may as well take the promises that it will end up in their wallet. McCain abandoned less government and less spending… the heart of the GOP that has been mutilated for over a decade.

Did I make that clear? Just got back from doing battle with city hall… literally… over a sewer district and unbelievably stupid engineering plans regarding my property. ugh!

Seems like I am always backing the loser, so everybody stay away from Jindal cause I think I am leaning towards him!

I find myself in the same boat for not only politics, but new products. If I like ‘em? They stop making ‘em….

@voter:

@Wordsmith: I actually liked Bush at first, untill I saw how the election went down,

You never followed up with the challenges to your perception of reality regarding the 2000 Election, in that other thread. I think Al Gore was the one despicable with how it “went down”.

and even after that, I gave him the benefit of doubt, untill I saw how he handled the “war on terror”. It was more a path for his buddies to get contracts to “rebuild” Iraq, as well as a way for us to have our hands on their oil.

His “buddies”? You mean Halliburton? They get contracted out, as they always have by previous administrations, because few do what they can do, and do it as well as they can do it.

Are we getting rich from Iraqi oil? Oil had something to do with this war, but not what lefties make it out to be.

If he were truly worried about weapons of mass destruction, then we would have long been in Iran and the like.

Iran was one of those named as “axis of evil”. If we went in to Iran, would you now be complaining “if he was really worried about wmd, we would have gone into North Korea”?

North Korea was named as part of the “axis of evil”. If we found just cause to invade over wmd, would you then wonder why NK, and not Iraq?

Iraq posed a danger, and it was a combination of wmd threat coupled to terrorism that made him a prime candidate of forceful removal from power. Plus, justification from violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, 686 and 687, and 12 years of subsequent follow up resolutions that Saddam snubbed his nose at.

Iraq was easier to invade and take over. Same mentality of a school age bully.

So, let me get this straight: What you advocate is we wait until we know for certain that Saddam had wmd, including nuclear weapons, so that it’d be a “fair fight”?!!!! There’s a reason why President Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but that we must act before the threat became imminent.

Your line of reasoning is as ridiculous as asserting that cops shouldn’t take on unarmed criminals who don’t have a chance to defend themselves against a PR-24 or firearm. Is it fair that law enforcement officers call in for backup? That they tackle a suspect en masse when possible rather than going “one on one”?

God forbid we should ever seek a “fair fight” in warfare unnecessarily endangering American soldiers, rather than bring to bare superior and sustained firepower to suppress an enemy with minimal casualties to us.

It’s all about the money.

Is George Bush profiting from this war, voter? Is America getting rich from Iraqi oil? What’s that inflated dollar figure anti-war liberals like to trout out, now?

Even if it were just about the oil, I would have respected him more, if he would have said, this is a move to keep America strong, since our worlds oil reserve will be depleted within 60-70 years.

That’s assuming that your premise that this was a war about oil and profiteering were correct. It is not.

But no, he lied and lied and lied.

Examples, please.

Gave us different reasons why we went to war. It’s 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, no it’s Iraqi freedom.

All those reasons were stated from the very beginning.

The emphasis post-war did change, as did the situation on the ground. After major combat operations ended, where should we have gone from there? The original plan was “liberation not occupation” and hand over reigns as soon as possible, modeled after Afghanistan. Bremer and others in the State Dept insured that didn’t happen, so we became occupiers. And the responsible course was now securing Iraq because it is tied to our national security, and because it was and is the humane, honorable thing to do.

@Craig: I was the one that wanted Fred. He is actually how I found this site.
If it was not for Fred’s mom being in the hospital for most of his campaign and the MSM ignoring him like all the other conservatives running, he would have done better. But it was not to be, and so we got McCain. My last choice except for Ron Paul and the Huckleberry Hound Huckabe.

Great op-ed by Shelby Steele in today’s LATimes:

Obama’s post-racial promise
Barack Obama seduced whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation.
By Shelby Steele

November 5, 2008

For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become — at least for a time — a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.

Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long — that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn’t a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn’t it imply a “post-racial” America? And shouldn’t those of us — white and black — who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?

Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama’s success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.

Obama is what I have called a “bargainer” — a black who says to whites, “I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me.” Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.

Obama’s post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa — 95% white — that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate.

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

Certainly things other than bargaining account for Obama’s victory. He was a talented campaigner. He was reassuringly articulate on many issues — a quality that Americans now long for in a president. And, in these last weeks, he was clearly pushed over the top by the economic terrors that beset the nation. But it was the peculiar cultural manipulation of racial bargaining that brought him to the political dance. It inflated him as a candidate, and it may well inflate him as a president.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.

But what about black Americans? Won’t an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn’t this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism — thus refueling our racial politics — despite the level of melanin in the president’s skin.

The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us “overcome” — America’s favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the ’60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don’t care who the president is.

Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Word, “da *man*”. My challenges are always extended with the best of intents, you know. However I really must disagree. In this election, conservative… if not dead… was downright non-existant. The closest thing to a traditional conservative was Palin, and the “moderate” right are busy blaming her.

Conservatism, as I know it, is all but dead in the past many elections. The further away from the Reagan era, the further away from conservatism. I don’t know how to say it any other way. You are a young whippersnapper (at least compared to me.._, so perhaps you have a morphed view. But on this, Mr. Mike and I are closer in our views on McCain and conservatism.

In order for Obama to win election, aside from the spell of charisma and glass ceiling breaking he had the country under, Obama also had to move to the right and campaign as a centrist (tax cuts, hawkish foreign policy blustering, distancing from past radical ties and history). He did not win by campaigning as a far left anti-war progressive liberal socialist.

Oye vay….

You think because the words “tax cuts” dribbed from Obama’s lips, he was “centrist”?

You consider his “cuppa tea” foreign policy “hawkish”??

Blustering and distancing himself from Black Theologists and Marxists ties is “centrist”????

I must be addressing that cute little whippersnapper in the red velvet rhinestone cowboy hat here…

For every yin there is a yang. I’m saying this to an “asian-american”??? (as we both so LOVE the hypenated american bit…). When the left says “pro choice”, it’s supposed to be the yang to “pro life”. But ya know, “pro death” doesn’t sound so good, so they make it “pro life” instead.

Such is Obama’s “tax cuts”. So let’s examine the “yang” you miss

1: BHO’s “tax cuts” are tax increases by sunsetting the Bush tax cuts
2: BHO’s “tax cuts” are only for the lower income, who do not pay the bulk of the taxes
3: BHO’s “tax cuts” also include tax credits for those who don’t pay taxes, giving them bucks back on their annual IRS return.

BTW, if I can’t be Treasure Sec’y, I play to be a senior welfare baby if Obama does this. So get to work…. :0)

So much for a “centrist” ‘tude on tax cuts but in “just words” only. It’s actually “tax increases” but “only on the wealthy” (sort of a yang to the DNC tax mantra). But a true conservative cuts taxes for all.. not those that contribute to least to growing the economy.

“Hawkish foreign policy”???? There’s no where to go there. Not sure what you think is “hawkish”. Unless, of couse, you want to include escalating Afghanistan and assailing Pakistan without their approval. But since both of those have been done under the Bush admin, and McCain would continue to do both as the situations warranted, I’m hard pressed to call Obama dutifully following the logical path “hawkish”.

And I don’t know what you would call centrist about throwing long term friends and associates under the bus (at least temporarily and half-heartedly). You can’t go from radical friends to centrist just by saying “that’s not the guy I knew”. That’s just plain politically expedient, and obvious to boot…. at least to 48% of us anyway.

I’m going to repeat this, and ask you to reconsider your response. Because this is actually important. In every previous election, most candidates disguised themselves and ran to the center. This election is very different. BECAUSE Obama did not run to the center.

Obama campaigned on “spread the wealth” before Joe the plumber made him say those three little words.

Obama campaigned on “social and economic justice” education before anyone knew about William Ayers.

Obama campaigned on taxpayer funded health care… and education.. and work training programs… and enery… all socialist govt programs, not private industry.

In short, Obama honestly campaigned as a far left fringe socialist from the beginning. The only difference is people didn’t start putting the “just words” together with the person until the end of the campaign. Perhaps he used too big of words? Dunno… but it was there from the start. And remained there to the end.

Hey Folks;
Wow, I wasn’t expecting this kind of infighting amongst Reps in what’s become a post analysis of, “What went wrong?” If you don’t mind, a little Indy input;

Hard Right. I understand your conviction to unbending “far-right” positions, but a firm hard line in the sand is not going to get you what you need. There needs to be some ability for you guys to compromise to get what you want. Not necessarily in your ideologies and convictions. In today’s world, neither party can be an island unto itself. And neither can pull in 270 electoral points on it’s own merits. You have to garnish some Independent votes to pull us in to help. You can’t afford to ignore us indies. Let me put it this way; The leadership of the Republican Party has strayed from it’s conservative base and swung left. Like it or not it is now a centrist party. And that is what caused many of us to jump ship. Independents are the new conservatives.

I’m not suggesting you should switch parties to Indy. But, Mon Deux! Repubs can’t move anymore to center when they’re already there. They’re infringing on Democrat territories. That’s how you lost us. We view you as both the same. We have to either stay Indy or try to pick the worst of “two evils”. You have to work smarter, not harder to draw us to your side. You have to look at what the Indies want and try to homogenize and co-operate with us. Many of us would much rather help the Reps if the stakes are down. Dubya was certainly not a conservative. He was actually left of center and moved further left after he got in. Palin didn’t only recharge your conservative base. Her positions on anti-corruption and reform also caught the eye of many formerly disenchanted conservative Indies. I would never have joined with you in this fight had it not been for her. As I’ve said before, although I have very high respect for McCain, I didn’t particularly like his positions on the issues.

You see, here’s the problems we Indies had with both parties:

1) Big business: NAFTA, and other Free Trade initiatives pissed us off. Businesses loved the idea because it increase their profit margins. They threw money at candidates on both sides of the aisle. The down-side was it closed up our factories. The Independents screamed for, Made In America” products, but neither of you listened. Under the Constitution, most of our Government funds came through tariffs and import/export taxes. When you took those away, you had to reach into our pockets for it. Even though both candidates support Free Trade, McCain made the mistake of saying we needed even more of it. Obama agreed, but he never came out and said it.

2) Lobbyist money: You have to wean yourselves off of taking money in exchange for favors. It has thoroughly corrupted our politicians and the system.

3) Proposals to change our Constitution: Stop coming up with Amendments to our Constitution. Independents liked our Constitution and Bills of Right exactly as they were thank you very much. Both sides need to quit screwing with it. Every Congress jokers on both sides of the aisle propose a dozen unnecessary changes. It makes us Indies very nervous every time you do this. Example: “All men are created equal” is a blanket statement already referring to all mankind. We didn’t need to change this to include the 13th 15th, 19th or ERA, we only needed to pass laws and legislation to enforce what was already provided for in the Supreme Law of the land. Prohibition and it’s repeal? Were those necessary? The 12th Amendment? Dump it, we don’t need it anymore. The 16th was created to allow for socialist program to get a foothold and create big government bureaucracies. The 23rd? Why did a single city need it’s own reps when our Capitol was in a state that already had them? Should NYC and LA get their own?

4) Reform:

Both Dems & Repubs always screw this up because the “reform” bills they create are naturally corrupted, as they are drawn up by beltway insiders that wouldn’t know reform if it bit them in the butt. Look how good it worked this year with the campaign finance reforms. Just peachy right? The only way to make reform work is to have processes analyzed and examined by study groups and think tanks. Improvement suggestions are then drawn by those with no political affiliation or potential investment gains. It’s like a business hiring an efficiency expert. It’s impossible to get it right when you are part of the problem. Paradigms have to be challenged.

5) Immigration:

By God, enforce our borders and stop letting illegals in and rewarding them with automatic citizenship to buy their votes. Both parties are endangering our national security doing this. They are not taking jobs, “nobody else wants”. They are taking jobs that used to be the entry level jobs of our nation’s teens, poor, and those who were outmoded by technological advance. Our kids are joining gangs or becoming slackers mooching on their parents because they can’t get entry-level job experience. If you drastically cut the taxes on small and medium businesses you could raise minimum wage, improve the economy, and reduce crime.

Don’t listen to liberals on anything … that’s #1.

#2 – The Republican Party needs gutting … big time and I’m tired of our $ going to crooked contractors and Dubia!

And it’s not Palin that needs to go … which is why the party is now turning on her. Listening to Laura Ingraham this morning and the jokes that ran McCain’s campaign are now blaming Palin?

Sorry to be vulgar but WTF? Way to go guys … go back to crawling up Obama’s a**! You are the cowards that let this happen … YOU … not Palin. You were dead before her and made her do what McCain should have been doing. I admire your service Senator … but when you say FIGHT … I think the wind coudl blow you over.

Maybe McCain shouldn’t have neutered himself by foolishly thinking that to win he needed to appease the uber-left.

Many call themselves democrats, but the % of them that are truly left is much smaller. Much. Again … people do what the TV tells them too. Which is why when things started going negative the last week, things tightened. Just like when Palin made her acceptance speech and ripped Obama new one … proper!

Enjoy your 4 years … you’ve woke a sleeping giant.