"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Naïve No More
By Dennis | 8 November 2008 | National Politics | 74 Comments
I have no pretense about my skills as a writer but after Tuesday’s defeat for the Republican Party, I attempted to put down what bothered me about the election. It was a interesting experience and now have a little better understand what needs to be done next.
For whatever it is worth I’ll share those thoughts with you…
I was gravely disappointed in the last election. Not only with the outcome but with the campaigning that exposed how naïve I have been my entire life; quite the epiphany.
I was told or taught or was somehow led to believe that the women’s movement and their demand for equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work, and equal respect in the workplace, were just the correct thing to do for both a moral and a commercial and governmental perspective. Moral in the sense that there is no justification to deprive any gender of the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The framers of our Constitution established no gender-based conditions. And, from a commercial and governmental perspective there is no justification for rejecting half the labor force, half of the source of creativity, or half of the source of leadership. To be successful in business and as a nation all of the available human resources must be employed regardless of gender.
It is also clear from world history and the present condition that those nations that choose such segregation are doomed to retain a quality of life for its citizens at a subsistence level and provide no opportunity to improve their conditions for their sons and daughters.
The election process I just witnessed proved that I was misled. Equality for women was not intended to be universal. Apparently such equality was limited to those women who embraced all aspects of the liberal agenda. A women’s position on abortion, taxation, social programs, and gun ownership were elements of a litmus test that allowed only some women the right to equality. Those that did not pass the test were derided, diminished and relegated to be barefoot, pregnant, and on the edge of town.
I was naïve.
I was told, taught or was somehow led to believe that Martin Luther King was right when he said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Inspiring words that again made moral sense as well as commercial and governmental sense. There is no moral justification to marginalize any person’s ideas or contributions or access to opportunity because of their skin color. And, no success-oriented business or municipality would reject the contribution and creativity of any person because of skin color.
The election process I just witnessed proved that I was misled. Apparently, Martin Luther King’s inspiring words were not meant to be a tenet of social justice and equality for everyone. The value and benefits of a person’s ideas were supposed to transcend skin color. That did not happen in the last election. Polls, repeatedly verified, indicated that 95% of our black community supported Obama and many of them unapologetically supported him because he was black. When was the last time 95% of any group agreed on anything? So much for Martin Luther King’s inspiring works and his desire to erase the divide between black and white. Obviously there are two sets of rules.
I was naïve.
I was told or taught or was somehow led to believe that a free press was absolutely necessary to protect a nation’s citizens from a despotic government’s lust for power. A free press unencumbered by government regulations and control can provide all elements of a story, all sides of a debate , and all nuances of a proposed public policy. Unintended consequences of potential decisions can be openly discussed so government can be forced to do what is right, not what is politically expedient or what serves special interest groups.
The election process I just witnessed proved that I was misled. The “free press” became the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. Further, any newspaper reporter or television commentator that aspired to a seat at a national media outlet was clearly warned that a “fair and balanced” approach was a career-ender.
It would be fair to argue that the founding fathers did not anticipate a powerful press that would conspire on a national level to manipulate public opinion, block the contrasting view and independently set the course of America’s future. So much for the vision of the ink-stained scribe that reported the facts and the concept that a well informed citizenry will make the proper choices. Contrary to Chris Matthews’ opinion, it is not the role of the media to help a President, or any other elected official, to be successful.
I was naïve.
I was told or taught or was somehow led to believe that this country, its ideals and the opportunities available to all citizens were worth defending. When I was in high school I knew I wanted to serve my country. The how, when and in what capacity were not well defined or articulated as is typical of most teenagers. In 1967 I joined the United States Army and for the last 40 years I have served America’s interests doing what I could to protect my fellow citizens from the aggression, greed and jealously of foreign governments who envied our success as a society and as a nation.
The election process I just witnessed proved that I was misled. Now it appears I have to protect by family from the aggression, greed and jealously of the American government that envies those who by their intellect and hard work have reached a position where they are independent, self-sufficient and can provide for their families. To be told by our leaders “paying more taxes is patriotic” and that “government needs to spread the wealth around” and those who “want to keep more of what they earn are selfish” and that the law should be applied based on one’s place in society or economic stature is preposterous as it is anti-American.
I was naïve.
Admin note: “Dennis” joins us at BVBL as an occasional contributor. We look forward to more.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
74 Comments
Views: 1892
Loading ...
Brilliant.
Hope to hear more from Dennis.
I passed your thoughts to my entire distribution list.
Well at least somebody has the take on this entire ding-a-ling nailed down correctly. Keep it up.
But we truly wish Pres.-Elect Obama well and hope he rises above the dreadful Pelosi-Reid factions running this country.
YOu LOST! just accept it.
Nice job proving one of Dennis’s points, king. Case closed.
You’re extermely naive if you think that a McCain/Palin victory would have had anything to do with conservatism as opposed to allowing one group of elitists to control the reigns of power rather than another set, end result being the proportion of favors distributed to special interests at taxpayers’ expense.
The things they tallk about aren’t what they really care about, and they manipulate you every 4 years with a bunch of hooey. Haven’t you noticed?
A “change” far more dramatic than what Obama can possibly bring is overdue. The parties are thoroughly corrupt and cannot be trusted.
Dennis, thank you for a well-written (despite your disclaimer) summary of what so many of us are thinking. I have said before that, for the sake of our great country, I have no wish for Obama to fail. But I have some real concerns about how the entire election process was conducted–how much public opiinion and, quite possibly, aspects of the economy, may have been maniipulated. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that we have peace and prosperity ahead of us, but I can’t help being distrustful. Time will tell.
Well, knowing one supreme court case might have helped that woman. It’s not that she didn’t embrace a liberal stance - frankly, she never really said she would work to reverse Roe/Wade, she said it should be returned to the states - which I wholeheartedly support - she was ill prepared and used. That is at least consistant with history regarding women and men.
She is endearing and captivating. Some good preparation and savvy and she will be a powerhouse. She has terrific local experience -Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan were Governor’s - and that should not be dismissed.
Regardless of her gaffe’s and apparent lack of breadth, the woman has strong convictions and for that I respect her and hope she comes back. Because of her convictions expanding her knowledge base will only make her stronger.
This time, she does not need expensive clothes. A great jacket, costume jewelry and good jeans are just fine with me.
I love my country. It’s my government I fear!
Anybody else nostalgic about the Cold War?
Dennis, liberals have only one rule: there are no rules, and anyone who thinks there are, is naïve. This empowering attitude frees liberals from the needless constraints of decency, fair play and the value of pursuing causes higher than themselves. It blinds them to the hypocrisy of double standards and eases the corrupt abandonment of both honor and integrity when dealing with the opposition. Dr. King’s words, fair elections, the free press and the American dream are for the Left mere abstrations subject to convenient interpretation.
I keep hearing my conservative friends make statements like the following:
“for the sake of our great country, I have no wish for Obama to fail.”
Let’s think about that. On the surface it sounds like a gracious sentiment and even patriotic, however the logic is unsound. If you truly have no wish for obama to fail then you are saying you support him in the following endeavors which he has promised to undertake:
1. Pro abortion including denying aid to botched abortion victims
2. Outright socialism - “spread the wealth”
3. Anti first amendment - the “fairness doctrine”
4. Higher taxes
5. More govt spending
6. Weak national defense - cutting and running in Iraq
7. Hanging out with racist preachers and terrorists
I could go on and on but I think you get the point. What I wish we and all our conservative friends would say is:
“for the sake of our great country, I have high hopes Obama WILL fail.”
Now that is a sound thought and it then opens the door for an honest discussion of WHY obama should fail. Personally, I WANT obama to fail. We cannot afford to play the nice guy sitting upon our high moral horse while the left beats our brains out. That is precisely what McCain did and is why he lost. This past election was totally winnable. obama presented us with more wedge issues that an other candidate in 50 years, and we chose not to use them. That is like bringing a wet rag to a knife fight. We should have hammered Obama on rev. wright, bill ayers et al incessantly from day one and never let up, but we chose to take a “high” moral stance instead. McCain refused to talk about rev wright because he was afraid of being called a racist. Guess what folks, they were calling him that every single day anyway!
Now we need to hammer obama day in and day out until 2012. There is no time to waste. The dems control all branches of the fed govt and can literally do whatever they want. Our only hope is to drive up obama’s negatives (the way they did to Bush) so that he does not have the clout to push through his radical agenda. If his approval rating were 41% rather than 61% he wouldn’t even think about taking on amnesty, gun control etc. Doing this would truly be “for the sake of our great country.”
I wonder what specific media(plural) you pay attention to. I would suggest you not watch television commentators and add you the newspapers you read: listening to radio, reading some magazines and… um… blogs. It’s actually quite easy to find information and media(plural) that you can be sure is not the “propaganda arm” of the far left liberal elites.
As for the patriotism of taxes, would you rather have us borrow 100% of our military budget from the Chinese. Would that be more patriotic and Americans paying for it themselves?
Greg,
Thank you for revealing yourself so completely in your full patholgical glory. God have mercy on your soul.
Do your parents have access to your blog, and have they seen or expressed an opinion?
I pray that your children never see what you post here. You will no longer be their hero if they do.
I wish for their protection from you, and at the same time wish that every other person reads the post to which I respond.
The demons that afflict you are not to be found among your neighbors, but inside yourself.
I continue to pray for you. Seriously.
[Ed note: next I suppose I’ll be held accountable for all GOP communications in Virginia? Sheesh.]
I am not sure why the author wrote: The framers of our Constitution established no gender-based conditions. If that were the case then why during the time of our “Founding Fathers”, women were not included in decision making for any part of the new forming government. Show one female signature in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Women were not allowed to vote. There is no historic record contrary, so the statement doesn’t hold water.
The idea or notion that the media who kept playing the same video soundbites of Rev. Wright over and over, somehow allowed Mr. Obama off the hook during the course of the election. The fact is, the American people realized that if you have a clergy who decides of their own accord to espouse a specific statement, it comes clearly out of their mouth and not that of the candidate.
There seems to be this prevailing idea that government can function fine without taxing anyone; well I guess as my Father had once said to me: “That is the price we pay for having civilization.” I guess since a lot of readers here have lost a great deal on Wall Street and have watched their future retirement money dwindle to practically nothing; they must then in turn refuse something called: Social Security, since we all know it to be “Socialism”.
Slick, I meant that I didn’t want the country to be battered from an Obama presidency, not that I want him to “succeed” in all that he has proposed. I think I express myself more clearly earllier in the day. If I liked his ideas, I would have voted for him. Hopefully, some of his more objectionable ideas such as you list will get counterbalanced by Democratic legislators who actually worry about what their constituency might think, and who want to stay in office. It sounds like a fairy tale, I know, but it’s better than hoping for social and financial ruin by 2012., and watching my retirement savings turn to ashes.
So it is imperative that we hammer away at our elected representatives and make it very clear where we stand on these issues. Show up and VOTE in off-year elections and do everything possible to take away the Democratic perception that they have been handed a mandate from the people to enact all of this nonsense. Or we can sit back and cry and wait for disaster.
Emma has it right
Slick loves a corrupt party more than he loves America
This is why we MUST demand that ethnic based special interest groups be banned from influencing our politicians. This is America and our melting pot needs to be fixed. Diversity DOES NOT work. Diversity creates “division” (just look at the root of the word). People should be accepted into positions based on ability not ethnicity.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
“Sign the Petition asking President-Elect Barack Obama to Reject Amnesty”
Please sign this petition and pass it along to ALL of your contacts for action!
I’m a bit upset about the election as well. Media did drive the election big time. I asked an african-american gentleman at work who he was voting for and he said “obama, who else? I’m black and I’m voting for Obama!” So I guess race did play a major factor in this election and it really saddens me. I hear on the news every day how far we have come in race relations and I’m now seeing that we really have not come that far at all.
http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10925506
“Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is in Chicago today to participate in a meeting of President-elect Barack Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board.”
Okay. Now this is RICH! Just look how bad the L.A. area is and who is in charge there! Now this individual is an advisor???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110404088.html
“As expected, Obama won nearly the entire African American vote, about 95 percent, compared with the 88 percent share that Kerry won. With turnout up overall, the surge in black turnout resulted in only a two-point increase in the black proportion of the electorate, from 11 percent to 13 percent. ”
So the increase in black voters accounts for about 2 of the 6 percentage points Obama won the popular vote by (i.e. the improvement over Kerry’s performance).
“Overall, only about one in 10 voters said race was an important factor in deciding whom to pick — and a majority of them voted for Obama. ”
They were consciously aware of it. I’m sure lots of McCain voters were not consciously aware of their biases, they are less likely to see themselves as affected or biased by race.
Do you think you’re biased? Try this - https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html
“But Obama nearly tied with McCain among white voters who had some college education, a group Bush won in 2004 by 11 points. This suggested acceleration of a trend that has been underway for at least a decade, as more and more college-educated white suburban professionals have been moving toward the Democrats. This improved showing by Obama was particularly relevant in Virginia and Colorado, the only two of the 10 states in the country with the highest rates of college education that Kerry lost. “
Obama has never said or done anything to lead anyone to believe he will be centrist or reach across the aisle, yet his MSM is continuing to spread the propaganda. Besides the media, we have a couple of generations of kids (now useful idiot parents and grandparents) indoctrinated into socialist/marxist thinking though a public education system that was hijacked by anti-American draft-dodgers (who went into teaching to avoid Vietnam). This country had a great run in its experiment in democracy and freedom. We are spiriling down and don’t have enough well-formed, well-educated citizens to pull it out, I’m afraid.
Did anyone catch this today from the Post Ombudsman, page B06?
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
Now that their mission is complete, they admit to what has been obvious–and what they have been denying–all along.
90% of blacks went for Gore in 2000 (couldn’t find stats for 2004). Blacks generally go for Dems at about a 90% rate.
Only 12% of blacks went for Michael Steele, a Republican black candidate for Senator in MD. By your logic, shouldn’t Steele have gotten 95% of the black vote?
Emma, I’m sorry if I seemed critical of you. You are a great American. I just feel we need to use our words more carefully because they do have an impact. You are right that there will be some dems in the house who fearing their constituents, will break from this radical agenda but look what the dems have to gain. All they have to do is get amnesty through and POOF, theres 15 million new dem voters and millions more flooding in behind. That spells a permanent majority! So what if obamanation’s polls go down a little and the dems lose a few house seats? A permanent majority is worth the mall sacrifice and they know it. They will laugh st our whining, especially when we didn’t vote for them in the first place. We only just barely stopped amnesty from our own side.
Both, that was a really low blow, but just what I’d expect from a commie obamamoron. Why don’t you go back to the daily kos now and get your marching orders for the rest of the day.
obamanation stole the election and lied, lied, lied. This is the strategy folks, get his negatives up and you take away his power to enact his agenda. It worked beautifully for the dems with Bush, now lets do it to them.
Why Obama won, and why McCain lost
On Tuesday, more than 64 million Americans voted for a black guy with a strange name to be their next president. When he won, the world’s view of our country instantly changed, and so did the way we view ourselves.
President Barack Obama?
Two years ago, if you’d made such a prediction in any barroom, bowling alley or beauty parlor, the response would have been laughter or puzzled stares.
Yet, against all odds, here we are. The scene in Chicago’s Grant Park the other night was unlike any election celebration in memory — an ocean of exuberant young and old faces; white, black, Asian, Indian, Hispanic, native American.
Only the coldest of souls could have watched and not been moved.
Millions of words will be written about how it happened, but one of the keys to Obama’s victory is obvious. He wouldn’t have won so decisively if not for the outrageous mistakes and excesses of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whose mess will take a long, long time to mop up.
Yet it’s naive to believe that anybody could have beaten a Republican this year. For Democratic candidates, there’s no such thing as a slam dunk. Given half a chance, they can blow any election.
Everyone remembers what happened in Florida in 2000, but let’s not forget that Al Gore couldn’t even win his home state of Tennessee. Four years later, John Kerry, a true combat hero, responded like a wimp when his war record was falsely maligned by the Swift Boaters. His campaign never recovered.
This year, Obama was as charismatic as Gore was dull, and as forceful as Kerry was tentative.
Even with the quagmire in Iraq and the economic meltdown at home, Obama couldn’t have won election without uncommon self-discipline, unshakable poise and compelling skills as an orator. He also put together a superior fundraising machine and a campaign operation that was deft and saturating.
Everything had to come together in a huge way for a young African-American man to win the White House — the candidate had to be exceptionally impressive, and the timing had to be just right.
Obama wouldn’t have won so handily, and possibly not at all, had his opponent been the John McCain who ran against Bush in the 2000 primaries, instead of the John McCain who morphed into a cranky, fear-baiting panderer.
The self-proclaimed maverick flip-flopped eagerly to appease nervous conservatives. Although he’d once lambasted the Bush tax cuts for favoring the wealthy, he now embraced them as a centerpiece of his economic platform. Once he’d opposed offshore oil drilling as too risky and short-sighted, and now he touted it as an answer to energy independence.
McCain didn’t just edge to the right; he veered hard. He lost his way, and he also lost track of the mainstream.
He attacked Obama’s inexperience and then chose a running mate who was staggeringly unqualified to step in and serve as president, if needed. Picking Sarah Palin was McCain’s first and most important executive decision as the GOP nominee, and he blew it.
Voters weren’t the only ones who questioned his judgment; so did many party stalwarts.
More discouragingly, for those of us who admired McCain, was how quickly he abandoned his pledge to run a high-road campaign. As the victim of a scurrilous smear by Bush’s weasels during the 2000 primary in South Carolina, McCain had vowed to stick to the issues.
But it wasn’t long before he surrendered the helm to those with Karl Rovian scruples, and they went negative in a large way. The plan, neither cunning nor original, was to make America afraid of Barack Obama. It didn’t work.
More than 64 million people came to the sensible conclusion that the Illinois senator wasn’t really a softy, a socialist, a pal of domestic terrorists, a closet Muslim jihadist, a distant cousin of Osama bin Laden or any of the other idiotic inferences that surfaced in print or on the Internet.
While McCain’s camp was spending millions trying to make Obama look scary, Obama himself remained cool and focused. As a result, most voters felt they knew him better, and trusted him more.
It’s impossible to say whether the election would have turned out differently if McCain had run a campaign of positive ideas, but the contest surely would have been closer. Despite the crushing weight of the Bush legacy, he still drew more than 56 million votes.
Among those were some who fell for the fear-mongering, and others who’d never have voted for any African American. But there were also many who simply believed in their candidate.
We saw a glimpse of the other McCain in his gracious and eloquent concession speech, but you also saw why he lost. His crowd of supporters at the Biltmore in Phoenix was almost all white, the shrunken core of the Republican Party.
Mainstream America was in Grant Park, cheering their new president.
Yellow,
I agree with your logic somewhat however I’m sure Steele didnt target the black population near as much as obama. And you left out the fact that obama is running for president, not the senate. Obama targeted the black population heavily and I know it means a lot to them (as it should) however voting for someone because they are black set’s things back more than a bit. you point out percentages, why dont you point out numbers of black voters in previous elections for president (democratic or otherwise) and compare them to this one. Hispanics and Blacks traditionally vote for Democratic party positions, everyone knows that and it’s not new news…
“Wake Up, Damn It!” – Ralph Waldo “Petey” Greene
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
November 6, 2008
For the uninitiated, Ralph Waldo “Petey” Greene told it like it was in his world on the Washington, DC airwaves on WOL during the late 1960s and early 1970s before succumbing to cancer. The ex-con, who described himself in his boss’s word – a miscreant, because it sounded more sophisticated, would no doubt be shocked that his trademark show opener on the DC soul music station would be used in conjunction with the Republicans. Don Cheadle more than adequately portrayed Greene in the enjoyable 2007 film Talk To Me.
With the GOP’s rapidly and radically shrinking numbers in the Congress, the elephant has become an endangered species and qualifies the Republican Party for federal aid and protection. But being the proud party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, the GOP would never stoop to the level of the Democrats of milking from an already bloated and overextended federal government teat.
While the battle has been lost, the war wages on and it is incumbent of the Republican Party to coalesce, look forward and stop the blame game. Although there is more than enough blame to go around, it should not fall into the lap of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Like a rabid pack of wolves devouring their young, the McCain staffers are throwing Palin to those very wolves. They are wrong to do so, as much of the blame falls on the narrow shoulders of the McCain camp itself. John McCain needs to step up and silence the critics while defending his vice presidential nominee.
The 2008 GOP presidential campaign sadly resembled the 1996 milquetoast effort phoned in by the Bob Dole campaign. Make no mistake, I like Bob Dole – even voted for him (although I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary) and do not fault him as a person, World War II hero or United States Senator. But his campaign went through the motions as many people anointed him because the party majority believed it was “his turn,” much was the case with the John McCain campaign, until Palin was added to the ticket.
The problem was not that McCain’s people threw Palin under the Straight Talk Express after the election, but before the votes were even cast. Why was Palin not more properly prepped prior to appearing before a hostile media? Why was Palin not put on the Fox News Channel first, where she would have been given a fair shake on the fair and balanced news network. There, Palin could have gotten her “sea legs” in preparation for the unfriendly onslaught from the allegedly mainstream media that would inevitably follow.
No, no, Palin is not to blame for the loss this past Tuesday. History was made Tuesday because very motivated people voted for Barack Obama and fewer, less motivated people voted against Barack Obama as opposed to voting for John McCain. This campaign could not have been run more poorly. There is no honor in losing with what was at stake. The McCain camp allowed the media and Obama campaign determine what the McCain campaign would say or not say simply due the fear of being labeled a racist.
There is no question that Senator Obama ran a solid campaign, and why not, he had more money than any candidate has ever seen in history. He had the resources provided for him by many people who turned their dollars into votes to deliver the victory home for Obama. People were excited by the Obama candidacy because of his youthful exuberance, his promise of change, which is what will be left in people’s pockets if his economic proposals are enacted, and many people believed he is one of them – be it young, urbane, or biracial – both blacks and whites could associate with Obama.
Yet, while Senator McCain said he would run an honorable campaign, which he did, he failed to bring relevant issues to the forefront and force the media to either deal with those issues or admit they were in the tank for Obama. But McCain did not do either. So, while McCain was getting whacked like a piñata, only a handful of talk radio hosts – true conservatives like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, for example, carried McCain’s water and begged him on air to hit back with Obama’s association to unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, anti-Semitic Rev. Louis Farrakhan, incendiary Michael Pfleger and Obama’s 20-plus year, anti-American Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
McCain should have hammered Obama on his socialistic economic plans, government-run health care plans, poor grasp of foreign policy including his willingness to sit down without preconditions with Cuba’s Castro, Venezuela’s Chavez, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Iran’s Holocaust denier Ahmadinijad who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, calling the Jewish state a “stinking corpse.” By voting in favor of the economic bailout several weeks ago, McCain ceded the economic socialism issue as the bailout was just that – socialistic and the stock market reacted adversely in the immediacy of that slippery-slope of a vote. And, just look at the continued downturn of the market in the days since the Obama victory – speaks volumes. Even Obama’s and Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden’s own words were not used against them as often as they should have been. Obama-Biden ran on Carter issues, but with a Clinton campaign – thus the electoral success.
The American people were as in the dark about Obama on the eve of his historic election as they were when he announced his candidacy on the state house steps in Springfield, IL nearly two years ago. Statistically, it is known that Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate. Why that did not lead to a more conservative GOP nominee remains a mystery.
In fact, the most conservative Republican candidates for president, those who most adhered to the GOP principles of smaller government, less government interference in people’s lives, fewer government giveaways, fewer bailouts, a strong defense, an unwillingness to compromise on the issue of illegal immigration, a support of school choice – including vouchers and charter schools and lower taxes, were Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Unfortunately, these three have a public demonstration of warmth roughly equivalent to a burned out light bulb. They are as about as exciting as a mug of warm milk. Yet, because of their principles and unyielding stance on the issues, Congressman Tancredo (CO) and Congressman Hunter (CA) were my top two choices. Sadly, neither could even muster enough support to garner the requisite signatures to place their names on the Virginia ballot. Gilmore (VA), who was slaughtered in his bid to replace retiring John Warner in the US Senate, was long gone by the time of the Virginia primary.
That left the ever amusing former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, the uber-wealthy former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, Mr. Law & Order Fred Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, America’s mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City and McCain – none of whom, save for Thompson, could be considered a conservative and Thompson ran such a lackluster campaign that he too was out before the Virginia February primary. Thompson earned my vote, as he was still on the ballot, and it also a message to Senator McCain that he needed to make a sharp right turn.
McCain did just that with his selection of Palin, but that seemed to be a Hail Mary pass late in the fourth quarter down by five points. Palin was hardly vetted – not her fault, and although she gave some fiery speeches and certainly reached the GOP base, the McCain folks did not prepare her well enough to face what awaited her.
With more grooming, education and experience as the Chief Executive of Alaska, Palin will have a future with the Republican Party. Few others loom on the horizon, save for representatives Marsha Blackburn (TN-7), Eric Cantor (VA-7), Shelley Capito (WV-2), Jeff Flake (AZ-6) Thad McCotter (MI-11), Adam Putnam (FL-12) and Paul Ryan (WI-1), as well as governors Charlie Crist (FL), Mitch Daniels (IN), Jon Huntsman, Jr. (UT), Bobby Jindal (LA), Tim Pawlenty (MN), Rick Perry (TX) and Mark Sanford (SC). The national party lacks leadership at the helm of the Republican National Committee (RNC), its core constituency is shrinking and not being replenished. So, aside from a failed campaign, the GOP has more internal problems that do not paint a pretty picture for its future.
For all its finger pointing and blaming each other, this is time for the GOP to heal itself. Recruit younger conservatives – people who believe in, and adhere to the core values of the Republican Party. Go forth and spread thy wings in the directions of Jewish, black, Hispanic and Asian voters who believe in traditional values of faith, family and freedom. People who believe in country before party. Actively engage on college campuses. Do not surrender academia to the Democrats, socialists and others attempting to brainwash our young people.
The GOP must widen its tent and not just give lip service to minority groups. It’s great to see the likes of my friend Michael Steele of Maryland at the head of GOPAC, but where are the other conservative black voters? It’s great to see Eric Cantor of Virginia as chief deputy minority whip in the House of Representatives, but where are the rest of the Jewish conservatives? There was no excuse for the Jewish vote to have turned out so heavily for Obama with his questionable associations and less than stellar support for Israel. Yet, in traditional liberal lockstep, the Jewish voters gave Obama 70-plus percent of their support.
With the defeat of Gordon Smith of Oregon, there are no longer any Republican senators on the west coast in the lower 48. With the defeat of Connecticut’s Chris Shays, there are no longer any Republican congressmen representing a single New England state. These are daunting and virtually insurmountable problems facing the future of the Republican Party. The white, Christian, male over 50 years of age is a fast shrinking demographic that the GOP must replenish from other avenues.
During the next four years the Republican Party must not wander the desert aimlessly while in exile from Washington, DC. The party must promote its brand in a positive fashion with fresh faces. Give younger people reasons to form Republican clubs on high school and college campuses. Promote positive reasons for being a Republican, not just negative reasons for not being something else. Seek out the minority groups that have traditionally believed there has not been a seat at the GOP table in the past.
During the next four years of exile, the Republican Party must be ever vigilant in keeping a close eye on the Obama administration. As Americans who believe in country first, we wish him well and hope for success. But we will be watching as liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will no doubt retire and probably justices “Darth Vader” Ginsburg and David “the disappointment” Souter as well – all liberals, giving Senator Obama ample opportunity to put a major handprint on the Supreme Court that will have a long-lasting impact for the foreseeable future. The Republicans must not be a rubber stamp on the confirmation of justices, judges, cabinet members and the other crucial appointments that will come before them in the Senate. Question them hard and vet them carefully. Do not be afraid to use the filibuster – and use it correctly – the way Jimmy Stewart aptly demonstrated in the great film Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.
The party must also go on offense as well in recruiting top flight candidates to run for the Senate in 2010. As the Reagan campaign slogan told us in 1980, “Now is the time.” Recruitment must already be under way. Of the 34 senators up for reelection in 2010, 15 are Democrats, including the seat currently occupied by Obama, which will be filled by another Democrat.
Chris Dodd (CT) could be in trouble with the right opponent, perhaps the recently defeated Congressman Shays. Russ Feingold (WI) could be in trouble as well, again with the right opponent, perhaps the up and coming Congressman Paul Ryan. Blanche Lincoln (AR) is a Democrat in the deep South – she should be in as much jeopardy as Shays and Smith were in Connecticut and Oregon respectively. With all of his incendiary and polarizing remarks over the past four-plus years, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) should face stiff opposition, if the GOP can find an attractive candidate lacking Reid’s perpetual dourness. Ken Salazar (CO) could face a tough reelection battle if Tom Tancredo comes out of retirement. He has made overtures about seeking the governor’s mansion in the Centennial State.
Unfortunately, the remaining 10 Democratic senators facing reelection in 2010 will probably encounter no more than a token challenge and be returned for an additional six years. This includes Evan Bayh (IN) because he’s a moderate in a typically red state, Barbara Boxer (CA) because it’s California, Byron Dorgan (ND) because of his seniority, Daniel Inouye (HI) because it’s Hawaii, Patrick Leahy (VT) because it’s Vermont, Barbara Mikulski (MD) because it’s Maryland, Patty Murray (WA) because it’s Washington, Chuck Schumer (NY) because it’s New York, Ron Wyden (OR) because it’s Oregon and whomever fills Obama’s seat in Illinois because that person will have only served two years and have a connection to Obama.
Conservatives must not be afraid to speak up from the wilderness. Our voices must be heard – not just as reactionaries, but as visionaries with an eye toward the future of the greatest nation G-d put on earth. Republicans and the Republican Party ought to heed the words of the late Petey Greene and “Wake Up – Damn It!”
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.
anon in dale city,
What military budget?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2128789/posts
When the next budget is submitted to congress I strongly suspect the military will not be eliminated and even if it was congress would probably put it back in the budget.
I don’t think that we should ping on African-Americans so hard with regard to their heavy support for Obama because of his racial makeup. To me it was not an unexpected thing. When you have been unfairly shut out of the ultimate halls of power , so to speak, for as long as they have been, it would seem quite natural to seize upon a real chance with great emotion. Now that the pinnacle has been reached, however, the ultimate judgement of them as discerning voters (just like all the rest of us are judged) will come when they are obliged to make more sober assessments of the real worthiness of a particular politician for a particular job. Many of our Black brothers and sisters just might begin to look at the likes of Michael Steele with much more interest. Right now, however, I refuse to blame them for going after the brass ring as an emotional reaction to centuries of prejudice. I cannot say that I might not have done the same thing in their shoes.
This is not necessarily a “Black thing.” Do none of you recall the election of 1960? There was at that time a great wave of Catholic support for JFK simply because he presented a real chance for a first-ever Catholic president. My wife can still recall the nuns at her high school going absolutely gaga over the prospect. Once again, a situation in which a particular group had been shut out of the halls of power, largely because of prejudice. What happened afterwards? Once the euphoria had passed, many of these voters reverted to more acute discernment. Many Catholics, either Democrat or Independent, became not just Reagan Democrats but eventually Republicans. The reasons? No. 1: Catholic morality came back into play, especially over the abortion issue. No. 2: Many moved up from the working or dirt farmer class to the white collar or entrepeneur class and began to see life from a different perspective.
It’s hard to write something like this without appearing to put too much emphasis on a particular group as something apart from the rest of us. Better we should recognize that our Black brothers and sisters are quite simply an integral part of our national mosaic and can be expected to act in the end just like any other American. If they are late coming to the party, that is our fault. The doors were not really and finally opened to them until 4 November 2008.
Then Wolverine, how would you define “racism”?
I believe that “racism” has to do with skin color. I don’t like to say it, but I DO believe that it does. Even now, Blacks and Whites do not mix naturally.
The Irish Catholics were white like “us” and you couldn’t tell them from Joe Blow (the plumber), consequently they eased into the so called mainstream.
Of course, I could never understand how the Irish could tell the difference between Catholics and non- Catholics.
Blacks and Browns have this challenge that they cannot change their skin color. (remember Michael Jackson)
Slick, if there were an “amnesty,” as you put it, that would not mean automatic citizenship so your “poof” is not correct in terms of creating new voters. Automatic citizenship did not occur in 1986 when that Republican God signed the famous bill and there is no legislation of that kind in the offing. And anyway, McCain’s perspective on some form of legalization and a path to citizenship is not significantly different from Obama’s.
How exactly do you say Obama stole the election? That implies some sort of fraud at the ballot box. Considering that the election was not even close, not in popular votes and definitely not in electoral votes, you are saying that there was fraud on a massive level? Where and how? Remember, you are talking millions of votes. You appear to be unable to accept the fact that a majority of the electorate simply disagreed with you.
Chicko (in response to you on this and other threads), Obama did not win this election because of black support. First, African Americans are (as the country’s second largest minority) only 12% of the population. You have to subtract from that 12% all of those who are not eligible or registered to vote. The black vote was certainly significant as a tipping point in some states, like North Carolina, but less in others. Obama won states with negligible black populations, ie. 2 percent or fewer black residents. He won in states that don’t even have 1% black residents. Also, Obama won crucial swing states such as Ohio by attracting white voters in surprising numbers. He had substantially more support among female voters than McCain did. He got more of the white vote across the board than John Kerry did in 2004. The Hispanic vote was significant and important in several contests including some swing states. And while there was no surge in the youth vote, there was a strong partisan shift in youth voters toward the Democrats.
anon,
your are incorrect…show were you found those numbers, I wanna see links.
chicko, which numbers specifically? Are you saying you don’t believe African Americans are 12% of the population? Are you saying Obama didn’t win states with 2% or fewer black residents? The statement about Obama doing better than John Kerry did with white voters was from a conference report to the US Chamber of Commerce meeting on Friday that was broadcast on C-Span. The statements about the youth vote was also from there. I can find links for all of them, but it would be helpful to know what numbers you doubt.
The presidential election of 2008 is over. You lost, we lost, I lost, they lost…whatever.
My biggest concern for the Republican Party is that it stands on the edge of the abyss ready to plunge into oblivion. While I really don’t give a rat’s ass about the Republicans I’d like to have two political voices instead of one.
The Republicans are incompetent.
They put forth a bad ticket of candidates and the candidates campaigned poorly. John McCain is a great man and a patriot but he was an awful candidate. Palin is a lightweight who is at least 10 years away from being ready for a VP slot.
Rather than wishing bad fortune on President-elect Obama (a VERY unpatriotic thought) - why not look forward. There is an alection for governor in under 1 year here in Virginia. What should the Republicans do to win that election?
Tillie, like the black people and the Latinos, caucasians have a bit of difficulty changing their skin color as well. So, in consideration of the recent election, and 95% of the black people supporting the black candidate, what is it that defines racism?
Is that a characteristic of caucasians alone?
clarence thomas, condi rice, colin “the traitor” powell, barry black, allen keyes, the list of blacks that have “made it” grew under republican, not democrat administrations, the door is wide open and has been for a long time to those who are qualified . . . let’s see who obama rewards, my prediction is it will not be the blacks but the abortion lobby . . . blacks kill their offspring in greater numbers than whites and hispanics, google margaret sanger the mother of planned parenthood and she what she thought of our black brothers and sisters . . . this election was all about abortion, the highest sacrament of the liberal left and the blacks were played . . .
This election was racist. Barack Obama was elected because of the color of his skin. Everybody who voted for him for that reason should be ashamed and take a good, hard look at themselves. The MSM, who gushed over Bill Clinton like a bunch of love sick teeny boppers, turned on him like a pack of jackals. They will do the same to Obama, within 2 years. You heard it from me first. The rest of the world thinks we’re not so racist any more. Go to Japan and ask them what they think of Koreans or Chinese and stand back. The U.S. is way down the ladder when it comes to racism. Go to a Hutu village in Africa and tell them you’re a Tusi. They’ll kill you where you stand. American caucasians are among the most open minded and accepting of the races. So much so, that a lot of us feel guilty about being white. Privilege and wealth comes from hard work and perseverance. It happens over generations, not overnight. Racism in the U.S. is promulgated by minorities and the Democratic party to cultivate handouts, (Obama’s going to pay my gas and mortgage) hiring quotas and unearned benefits. Respect must be earned.
OK, boys and girls, first of all the black population in the US is closer to 14 percent then the 12 as suggested above earlier. That said, this election was won because Obama attracted plenty of white voters, without whom he could not have even been elected to the US Senate, let alone president.
The election is in fact over, yet, there is much to learn from the GOP failings on both the national and grass roots levels - see my earlier posting and visit my blog via my website www.sanfordhorn.com.
As for the racial and ethnic pride that people feel when one of “their own” is on a national, or even local ballot, for that matter, the more often it happens the less people notice or make a big deal of it. The Jewish community was doing a hora (dance) in the streets over the nomination of Joe Lieberman for vice president in 2000. And although that was the first of its kind, I didn’t lose my mind over it and still voted against the ticket because I could never vote for Albacore - Al Gore. Will people like Michael Steele get more attention from black voters in Maryland as one writer above suggested? Yes, he will, as will Eric Cantor, the lone Jewish Republican in the House of Representatives.
But the GOP must work from the bottom up to recruit candidates of all stripes to run for local offices and not just have a token black, brown or yellow face in a crowd. Remember, it is the Democrats, who, for as long as I can recall, divide their base by hypenating its groups. The GOP simply, and rightly so, identifies its people as Americans - period.
The only point with which I would disagree is the observation about the 95% of the black vote. ‘Fact is, that level of support would have been comparable for virtually ANY Democrat candidate, as it has been in prior contests, because so many have never left the Liberal plantation. It cannot, in this case, be attribute to racism simply by virtue of the numbers. More analysis of motivation would be necessary.
“attribute” = “attributed”
Anon,
obamanation stole the election through a massive and coordinated effort to raise illegal contributions in the hundreds of millions. Nearly half if his 500 mil is still unaccounted for, that is to say we have no idea where it came from and likely never will. Much of that was paid on temp credit cards you can buy at a convenience store which are totally untraceable. It is not legal to raise funds from non citizens. But we know where the money came from; africa (mainly kenya), soros, the lefties in europe, hugo chavez and his commie butt buddies. The dems could have run the double murderer oj simpson and with that much of a money advantage got him in the white house. The day after Bush won his second term, the dems went to work on a carefully orchestrated plan to call him a liar and say he stole the election through massive voter fraud, intimidation, voter repression etc. This played very well with their base and independents and started the slide in Bush’s poll numbers. The dems know what we have apparently yet to discover, that a coordinated plan to attack our opponent relentlessly in an effort to raise his negatives is the best way to block his agenda. BAD POLL NUMBERS PARALYZE POLITICIANS! In this case, since we control nothing it is essentially our only option anyway. This is the path to victory. If they ask you about the economy, tell them to cut taxes, then bring up bill ayers. If they ask about Iraq, tell them to follow the Patraeus strategy, then bring up stealing the election. This worked great for the dems and it’s high time we learned a thing from them.
Sanford, the black population in the US is 12.8, which is closer to 12 than the 14 you claim, but I should have rounded up to 13.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Sanford, the black population in the US is 12.8, which is closer to 12 than it is the 14 you mention. But I should have rounded up. This info is from quick facts at the US census site. For some reason I am not succeeding with the link.
I sit corrected.
Speaking of race, how come the white half of Obama doesn’t get any credit? I’m sure his mother would have been upset!
you have to wonder why obama claimed black instead of white. Is it because he looks more black than white? or maybe he’s honoring the male half of his race. Could be any number of reasons, it could also be that he claimed to be black to swing black voters but I doubt that.
I guess if your both you can claim to be either or, I’m not sure
Chicko-
He chose black to be successful in politics. That’s why he chose the Chicago Democratic political machine to propel him to the Presidency. There are any number of white males who want to be the president. That’s one reason that I didn’t vote for him. He would’ve been wrong for the job, no matter what color his skin was.
“you have to wonder why obama claimed black instead of white”
“He chose black to be successful in politics”
OMFG … this is what they call “willful ignorance” …
You guys are making me feel ashamed enough to undo my white choice/claim …
“Willful ignorance” is the charitable way to put it. Before ever being in the public eye, Barack Obama experienced this society as a black man. In New York City at Columbia U., in Cambridge, Mass. at Harvard, in Chicago, in everywhere he has lived as a young or older man, he would have encountered responses based on his appearance. The notion that he chose his identity as black is just bizarre and makes it seem as though you live in a fantasyland. You can’t really believe it can you? Do you suppose that his half-white ancestry would somehow protect him from such common indignities as being passed up by cabs in downtown DC, for example, no matter how well dressed?
Anyway, Chicko, you told me I was entirely incorrect and I asked above at 6:18 what numbers/claims you doubt so I could supply the links you requested. I want to know both to post only as many links as needed and also to find out what you are mistaken about since I know and have confirmed that everything I claimed is accurate, except I said 12% instead of 12.8 for the black population.
Tillie said on 9 Nov 2008 at 4:16 pm: Flag comment
“Of course, I could never understand how the Irish could tell the difference between Catholics and non- Catholics.”
*****************************************************
Tillie Tillie, it’s really quite simple.
An Irish Protestant lifts his pinky ever so slightly when tossing back a shot.
An Irish Catholic is the one with mackerel on his breath.
For a greater understanding one should study Leprechauns, St. Patrick, and the lack of snakes on that Emerald Isle.
Sanford D. Horn —
Just re-read your post with the intro about Ralph Waldo “Petey” Greene. In my opinion, you hit a whole lot of nails right on the head, and your recommendations sound like an excellent formula for our future political battles. While those who are upset by the results of 4 November should be given a certain amount of time to vent their frustrations, I agree with you that we have to put a limit on it and get back to business. Today is the first day of the next political campaign.
I have been a fan of Michael Steele for a long time. He’s an impressive presence — almost the epitome of that old liberal media cliche called “gravitas.” In my view, Michael needs to take the lead in giving us some solid ideas on how to get a bigger slice of the minority vote without our resorting to “using” these voters as opposed to forming a genuine and honest alliance with them. Has he written anything lately giving his views on the subject? If so, I’d like to read it and learn from it.
These folks have all the hallmarks of “immigrants” who decided to enter the country legally, don’t they?:
Police were called to a Haymarket neighborhood Sunday after a man started shooting his gun in the air.
The gun was fired just after 7 a.m. in the 17000 block of Loftridge Lane, while a group of men and women were arguing in the street, Prince William County police spokeswoman Erika Hernandez said.
No one was injured in the incident but four people were arrested.
Axel Haroldo Reyes, 30, of 17068 Loftridge Lane, is charged with fighting with police after they arrived on the scene, Hernandez said. He was charged with reckless handling of a firearm, destruction of property, swearing in public, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest and three counts of assault of law enforcement officers. He was held without bond.
Carlos Lira Millones, 27, and Oscar Martin Sanchez, both of 518 Casino Circle in Silver Spring, Md., were charged with public intoxication.
Cintya Maritte Castro, 25, of 11500 Lucrest Terrace in Germantown, Md., was charged with disorderly in public. She was held on a $1,500 bond.
All four have a scheduled court date of Jan. 20.
“In my view, Michael needs to take the lead in giving us some solid ideas on how to get a bigger slice of the minority vote …”
What would he know about it? I have a generally positive impression of Steele, but he’s hardly going to be key to getting minority voters. No more than singular token Repiblicans like JC Watts did in past eras.
There is a Repiblican strategy for splitting the minority vote, it’s called pandering to Latinos. It seems to be failing through because the Democrats do it with less inhibition.
And in today’s news … President Bush continues to fret more about trade and the expansion of global capitalism than he does domestic concerns … he’s been like this for 8 years and his father for 4 before that …
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbol.htm
“Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia,”
Both Parties Collude —
You seem to be trapped in a world of nihilism. Instead of making snide comments about the thoughts and opinions of others, why don’t you buck up your courage and put some positive and possibly helpful comments on display so the rest of us can suck up your infinite wisdom. I would assume that you must have some philosophy of your own hidden in there somewhere — beyond your simplistic blog handle.
I don’t know about a philosophy. I do and have resented the way this Bush and his father concerned themselves more with other nations while they let this one weaken.
Maybe if time permits I’ll work up a manifesto. It’ll basically posit that we as citizens need to free outrselves from the false perceptions of reality that the Republican and Democratic parties (and their apologists) propogate upon us.
here’s a funny read:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1111081obama1.html
Well, Both Parties Do Collude, I must admit that there are times when I come very near to your mindset — given to a fantasy that we should go into Washington, drag all the current politicians of either party out by their heels, and ban them all forever from the seat of government. Then reality sets in. If I burn down the house, where will I live? That’s a question I have for you. What could replace the largely unsatisfactory situation we have now? Should we figuratively burn down the house and start over or try to fix what we have, miserably flawed as it is? Ideas, please?
Keep moving to the far extreme right and protect your “conservative values”, you are in the ditch, Americans are centrists not facists, the Republican Party has yet to figure that out.
“What could replace the largely unsatisfactory situation we have now? ”
There needs to be a collective awareness on Americans’ part that the issues that are used to get them to pull the lever are false issues. Then and only then things will get better. Either by a new political party coming to prominance, or by one or both of the existing ones becoming more real.
Partial-birth abortion is not something to fight about at length. It hardly ever happens.
The idea that GOP leaders REALLY want to make abortion illegal, or legal on a state-by-state basis, is not real. In fact they have done no planning or studies on what such an America would be like. Because they have no real intention of really making that happen.
Obama’s ideas on progressive taxation are not “socialism”.
Joe the Plumber doesn’t really benefit from the portion of Bush’s tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest Americans.
Obama cannot really help average citizens who have financially overextended themselves, nor offer any lasting help to those who can’t find employment. Migration and training are needed.
We can’t find Osama bin Laden without sacrificing many American lives, for the sake of finding a toothles old man.
Gay marriage won’t make life much better for gay people, nor any worse for straight people.
etc. etc.
The hope for betterment is awareness on citizens’ parts … the Republican ones, to me, are ever more rabid about pulling the lever every 2-4 years because “They want gays to marry” or “They want to burn flags” or “They want to take the word ‘god’ out of the pledge of allegiance” or “They are killing babies and Bush/McCain want to make it stop” or “The troops need a strong leader and Bush is that, because no one’s run as many negative ads on my TV about him and swift boats”.
Give the Democrats credit for this - they demand that their represtatives be actually somewhat liberal. They are willing to not vote for them if they are not satisfied with them. In 2000 the fact that 5% or so of them voted Nader in a close election spelled the difference and gave the GOP the White House for 8 years. Republicans don’t do that - they pull the lever every time and swallow the sandwhich. Hence their party has lost its “conservative” rudder while the Democratic party has probably moved to the left in the past 8 years.
I think that’s inarguable. The fear-mongering and rabid anti-liberal rhetoric of people like Limbaugh and Hannity has had the counter-intuitive effect of moving America to the left.
BPC said: “The fear-mongering and rabid anti-liberal rhetoric of people like Limbaugh and Hannity has had the counter-intuitive effect of moving America to the left.”
Oh, I think you are sooooooooooo wrong on that one. Call it “fear mongering” if you wish, but the Hannity and Limbaugh types are the only (and good) alternative.
How can you justify ANYONE’s association with the radical left relationships/associates/friends/cohorts or whatever you wish to call them of the “President elect”? If it hadn’t been for the Limbaugh/Hannity types, no one would have even known.
The heartbeat of America is NOT leftist in nature.
Both Parties Do Collude –
Let me address one issue at a time…abortion. I come from a very large family which includes many members who are either Evangelicals or conservative Catholics. Their oppostion to abortion is faith-based, deep, and ardent. Let them be criticized for their beliefs by atheists or rationalists if you will, but it is a part of their makeup that simply will not change. For many of them, any retreat on this issue is tantamount to committing a personal “mortal sin.” It is beyond politics. It is their “faith”; and, in the end, their “faith” trumps earthly concerns every time, even their economic well-being.
As a family historian I have talked to many of those in the so-called “Greatest Generation.” They told me almost to a person that their “faith”, Catholic or Protestant, is what brought them through both the Great Depression and World War II. They passed that “faith” on to the next generation; and the succeeding generations in many cases have respected it and remained attracted to many of the tenets, including an opposition to abortion. Abortion in and of itself is bad enough to them. Partial birth abortion absolutely horrifies them. Most consider it inhuman and outright murder. This is especially so for those in the South, the Midwest, and the Plains states, which is where most of my extended family lives.
So, if all parties downplay abortion as an issue, where will these people go? I have a feeling that many of them may just drop out all together. They may be so turned off by finding themselves in a position of supporting politicians who do not recognize the depth of their “faith” that they simply opt to shun the system, retreating even more into — how should I put it — a religious focus on what they strongly believe to be the “kingdom” which comes after this one, i.e. Will I personally pass muster with God when the time comes ?(That’s kind of crudely stated but it’s a bit difficult to express this thought.) I recently found some who are already so turned off by the current parties with regard to moral issues that they gave up trying to decide and simply did not vote. They never considered Obama, but they also had a strong suspicion with regard to the true moral nature of McCain — even though they did see him as a genuine war hero. Palin’s religious background brought some of them back but not nearly far enough.
It might be interesting to try an rearrange or modify the issues in the way you have suggested, but I fear it could result in leaving out there a considerable segment of the population which is thoroughly alienated from the overall body politic. While that segment was apparently not large enough to overcome the level of support received by Obama, it was an important part of the Republican base nevertheless. It seems to me that, if the Republican Party was seen to be divorcing itself from that base, it would rapidly become a much smaller entity with even less of a chance to win at almost any level.
I think what you may have here is a puzzle inside a dilemma. “Faith” is a mighty hard thing to ignore, even in this modern age. Beats me what you would do with these people if you decided to dismiss their moral concerns.
“How can you justify ANYONE’s association with the radical left relationships/associates/friends/cohorts or whatever you wish to call them of the “President elect”? If it hadn’t been for the Limbaugh/Hannity types, no one would have even known. ”
I think we would have known. But it would have been understood in perspective. Do you want to be judged on what an ex-pastor says and what some guy you knew professionally did or goes on to do?
“The heartbeat of America is NOT leftist in nature.” Hey I agree. The country leans further to the right than it used to. The GOP only lost the reigns of power because everything they/Bush touched for 8 years turned to dust.
Wolverine - personally I don’t care of a bunch of “faith based” fundmantalist Christian types decided not to vote. I’d probably like that. I don’t cry over that any more than I do the fact that some Nation of Islam fanatic feels he has no candidate who reflects his values, or some KKK guy, or some Satanist.
But I guess I would suggest that since they feel so strongly, they should split from the party that exploits them (and colludes against them, and markets to their fears) and create some third-party. As it is they’re supporting a party that really stands at core for trickle-down economics and unchecked global commerce. (You can make the bailout bigger - if you approve free trade with Colombia!). Let’s untangle the issues. Let’s not vote against “flag burning” and “gay marriage” so that some rich guys can reduce wages in America and increase offshore investment and outsourcing. Vote for what you want, within the framework of the Constitution, but I’m sick of seeing people get exploited by the elitists who run this country, and sell out what it is and could be. Their agenda has nothing to do with abortion.
BPC said, “Do you want to be judged on what an ex-pastor says and what some guy you knew professionally did or goes on to do? ”
Wait a minute, the 20-year “pastor” in question became “ex” only after the guy’s lunacy became public knowledge and therefore, it became politically expedient to throw him under the bus. How sad.
Secondly, it’s not “some guy”….it’s multiple “bad actors.” Association with one unscrupulous character might be judged unintentional, coincidental, or unfortunate but forgiveable. However, this guy you elected to be our next President wouldn’t even be granted a security clearance based upon his multiple prior associations.
Either not important to a lot of folks, or there are just too many uninformed and unconscious voters (like those who approved of Obama when led to believe that he opposed abortion, wanted to “finish the job in Iraq” and approved of Sarah Palin as Obama’s running mate). How sad is that?
freedom - are you referring to the bit from the Stern show where Sal the Stockbroker went on the street and interviewed Obama supporters? That was not an objective scientific study, when people are talking into a microphone they’re less likely to absorb what the interviewer is saying.
Wright was his pastor for 20 years, but he wasn’t the out-of-control crank he is now, at this level, for 20 years. I think Obama will be the first to admit he immersed himself in the left and associated with left-wingers, in part because as a black Democrat he felt pressure not to validate conservative or even moderate thought. I believe he writes about this with some level of self-awareness in one of his books. Hopefully he’s beyond that.
I’m a die hard Republican, and have to agree with skink as to why we have a Democrat as President-Elect. Some parallels too with what Gen Powell said before the election in his “apology” for abandoning the party.
I’m selfish and unpatriotic, by the liberal standard. Oh well…its simply something I must live with!
Ahhhhhhh Karla, I guess you’re “selfish” because you want to keep what you’ve earned and “unpatriotic” because you don’t wish to pay more taxes, right? If THAT’S the definition for selfish and unpatriotic, I fit there too!
…and guess what, Karla, before it’s all over, there will be a whole lot more just like us.
I am thoroughly convinced that the vast majority of people in this country do NOT wish to fund welfare taxcredit checks to the 40% of potential taxpayers who pay no income tax. Call it what you want, but that’s NOT “the American way.”