The American Spectator

frost| 12.1.08 @ 7:14AM

Don't you wish?!?!? First, not to be too overly critical, aside from John McCain's "Liberal Lite" campaign, and the media cheerleaders (merely an extension of the Democrat National Committee), there was that numerical conundrum -- we producers are simply outnumbered by the opportunists and those seeking Something-for-Nothing. A ghastly new "majority" are flushing this once-great country down the toilet.

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 8:06AM

The people who write blogs here are a bunch whimps -- excuse makers. The problem with Republicans is not ideology, it is competence. We elect people who are not intellectually curious, did not do well in school and business, and cater to religious extremism.

We need to elect the best and the brightest to office. Bush was a failure in business, McCain was never a proven leader and did poorly in school, and Palin was a know nothing. If you put smart, successful, knowledgeable people as candidates, they will forge a competent campaign and competent governance.

The reason the Bush administration and McCain jumped the tracks was that neither of them are competent. All one need do is look at the popularity of Palin in the Republican party and then notice how unpopular she is with independents, moderates, and Democrats. Republicans are now in the minority. Unless you can get moderates and independents to vote for you, you lose. You do this with competence and sophisticated policy positions along with an ability to communicate.

If I see more articles like this, I'll know that anti-intellectual conservatives want to lose.

Brian| 12.1.08 @ 8:43AM

"We elect people who are not intellectually curious, did not do well in school and business, and cater to religious extremism. "

Please tell me that you realize that the party of trophy wife Nancy Pelosi, Gambino errand boy Harry Reid, incompetent and corrupt pervert Barney Frank. trophy husband John Kerry, corrupt idiot Chris Dodd, tea organizer Hillary Clinton and especially the completely unqualified, unaccomplished clown act Barack Obama, has no one at all who belongs in Congress and I'll agree that we have to elect competent Republicans.

"You do this with competence and sophisticated policy positions along with an ability to communicate. "

Democrats have demonstrated their utter incompetence time and time again and no one seems to care. Their policy positions are full of vaugeries, lies and failed ideas and no one seems to care.

Anti-intellectual conservatives? What proof is there that anyone with an IQ above room temperature buys what the Democrats are selling?

debi912| 12.1.08 @ 9:30AM

"Palin was a know nothing"
Who is being intellectually dishonest here?
She couldn't possibly know anything as you well know, most start at the PTA and work their way to Governor. peice of cake. It is the Palin's that actually do something that the republicans need.
Lots of 'good communicators' on both sides, I'd like someone that would 'shut up' and 'do'.

frost| 12.1.08 @ 9:44AM

Curious, knocking Governor Palin. I'm a Pro-Choice Deist, independent Independent with some definite Libertarian leanings, BUT, as a former Alaskan with 22+ years, knowing many of the PowerBrokers and former Governors and a Lt. Governor (that's not name-dropping, just the terrific kind of place Alaska is), this woman beat some tough people, cut out some major crap and corruption -- she's the real deal!

Michael Dooley| 12.1.08 @ 10:25AM

So tell us, Bob, what does a “sophisticated policy position” look like to you? What would a “sophisticated policy position” about…say… abortion would be to you? Let’s get a little concrete here, Bob. If you have enough time to spare, formulate some “sophisticated policy positions” about some other issues. Let’s see exactly what kind of flag you march under.

Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 10:56AM

Bob is correct about the fact that the Republican Party runs the wrong people for President, but not for the reasons that he mentions.

The Republican Party, since the time of Ronald Reagan [was that only 20 years ago], has sold itself on the idea of catering to the welfare constituency of this nation. Increased social programs and attendant spending have become de rigor in Washington. The only respite came for the two years after the Compact With American change of Congressional leadership in 1994. Then it was back to tax and spend. The Bush administration brought us minor tax cuts, but tax revenue increased as predicted, very probably due to the lower tax rate equals more productivity equals greater profits equals more tax revenue theory. But, social programs and spending increased and the breaking of immigration law continued to be encouraged.

Bob is correct when he says the President Bush and Senator McCain are viewed as incompetent in a large number of areas by many Republicans. George Bush [who ran as a conservative] has proven to be quite liberal on most social issues and John McCain has always been much closer to the liberal Democrats than to most Republicans.
When you run Republicrats against Democrats, people will vote for the Democrat, or not at all. Why? For the same reason that people will buy a Rolex over a Chinese knock-off. If the price is the same, always go with the original.

The Republican party needs to decide what they are selling: independence or dependency, Uncle Sam or Big Brother, exceptionalism or mediocrity, heroic leadership or villainous bureaucracy. If it chooses wrong then we'll all have a happy existence in our smokeless, furless, SUVless, thoughtless, vegan society living in our government provided housing and watching old Al Franken re-runs after coming home from our $9 an hour government jobs.

Britcom| 12.1.08 @ 11:10AM

Listen Bob, [Comment: Bob | 12.1.08 @ 7:06AM]

You are talking out of your a**. The GOP needs to build its base back up, and that doesn't include moderates and independents (weenies all). Moderates and independents don't swing the election, social issue conservatives do.

Social conservatives stayed home in record numbers in 2008 because they didn't have a horse in this race. They vote on principal and record, not on pander. The fact is moderates and independent voters are all democrats and they are willing to vote democratic if they are pandered to, but they are not willing to vote GOP unless the Dems don't pander to them. The GOP has zero control over this and GOP pandering to them doesn't result in any GOP votes, their votes are focused entirely on Dem party rhetoric.

Hence, the GOP are fools to even try to get votes from this group. The GOP should build it's base from people who despise everything the Dems stand for, instead of insulting these true conservatives by running a liberal on the GOP ticket and thereby leaving GOP voters out in the cold with no candidate they could vote for and still look themselves in the mirror in the morning. Social conservatives don't vote Dem if they don't like the GOP candidate, they stay home and complain that both parties are driving us over a cliff.

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 12:35PM

Britcom, you are an example of the anti-intellectualism and lack of analytical ability by so-cons and extreme conservatives. There is no evidence that social conservatives stayed home, only that Republicans voted in lower numbers. Furthermore, the increases in Democrat turnout was simply a continuing trend since they acheived their low in 1980. There is a significant increase in independents. Remember that the total turnout was about the same as in 2004. The only LOGICAL conclusion is that many Republicans because Independents. If they were so-cons, they would not do that. If they were your kind of conservatives, they would not do that. Let me state this plainly -- YOU CAN'T WIN ELECTIONS WITHOUT GETTING MOST OF THE INDEPENDENTS. The next question, then, is how do you appeal to independents, who are mostly like me, fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

Politics is the business of gathering votes for a statistical win. You need to be dispassionate in your analysis. It's just like running a business and making good decisions. That's why the party keeps on choosing more moderate candidates for national elections.

By the way, the argument made here by your so-con friends is that Palin excited the base and they came out to vote for her.

Esther| 12.1.08 @ 1:49PM

Bob
You sound like a hate-Conservatives -no- matter- what. You must sit at your computer day in and day out to correct others to your way of beliefs and absolute knowledge of our government and of people in America. Gee you sound like a Democrate who knows what is good for everyone as Communists do. Every politician in Washington is to blame for the problems in our country today. I have never been so ashamed of our government as I have been and will be until they do something about themselves. (Fat chance)So Bob keep on correcting us with your superior knowledge and put down.

Dai Alanye| 12.1.08 @ 2:01PM

The problem with Bob is that he believes himself smarter than the rest of us "bunch wimps." I take leave to doubt this; I think he's an intellectual according to the Orwell definition.

Only an intellectual could believe that Palin hurt the ticket. Only an intellectual could believe that Dubya is incompetent rather than sometimes misguided. Only an intellectual could consider McCain to *never* have been an effective leader.

Having said this, I wish to congratulate David Axelrod for running an excellent campaign, especially in contrast to that run by McCain and his moderate allies. I also congratulate him for picking a malleable candidate, whose chameleon-like persona adapted itself to whatever the media and leftist fanatics felt important at critical times.

I even wish to congratulate him for successfully misleading simpletons like Bob. [Not that I have anything against simpletons, Bob. Some of my best friends, etc.]

Dai Alanye
http:alany.com/

Brian| 12.1.08 @ 2:02PM

"Social conservatives stayed home in record numbers in 2008 because they didn't have a horse in this race."

Any "conservative" who sat out the 2008 election, isn't a conservative or even a very good American.

Any "social conservative" who sat out the 2008 election was and is, ignorant. Obama is going to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice" act. McCain would not. Game, set match right there.

Countless Americans gave their lives for our freedom to vote. Sitting home on election day with soiled diapers isn't a principled stand, it was sheer cowardice and idiocy.

Blue in Florida| 12.1.08 @ 2:03PM

Nope, not true. I live in Florida and it's pretty blue down here. Sorry to dissappoint you Reds.

Obama Rules| 12.1.08 @ 2:07PM

It's pretty amazing that a well-spoken Bob speaks the truth, yet it appears nobody here can handle the truth. Unbelievable. Well, I guess you guys will keep on losin'. That's fine and dandy with me.

Brian| 12.1.08 @ 2:18PM

"It's pretty amazing that a well-spoken Bob speaks the truth, yet it appears nobody here can handle the truth. "

What exactly has Obama "competently run", that is besides his mouth?

Zero executive experience.

Same for Biden. Hasn't run anything but his mouth in his life and he's been wrong on every major decision (Cold War and the Surge) he's come across.

Why exactly does a supporter of Hopey and Dopey posit that the Republican's lack "competence"? Hopey and Dopey have never demonstrated competence, nor have Congressional idiots like Pelosi and Reid.

Get even one competent politician in your absolutely worthless Democrat Party then we'll talk.

frost| 12.1.08 @ 2:51PM

Kindly stuff it, Britcom. We Independents really do not necessarily qualify as "weenies," not when it comes to sensible priorities, and those of the hard-right are a tad too much for some of us who choose to think outside the (A) stem-cell, (B) gay crap, and (C) anti-abortion-at-all-costs box.
There are a few of us who are still pro-Choice (what is there about the word "choice" that so many fail to understand?) but have a few other items like tax-cuts/increases, humungous government spending/growth, ultra-leaky borders, and BigBrother restrictions that bug us a bit more than the aforementioned A, B, and C.
As one with Libertarian leanings, sure, I'd love to see prostitution legalized and taxed, consideration of fewer sanctimonious pronouncements that restrict our freedoms, and priorities that make sense rather than hinder us.
Two examples: The pandering congressman (Goodlatte?) who sponsored the Anti-Internet Wagering bill when we have a virtual plethora of Lotto, church Bingo, OffTrackBetting -- and that other creepy guy from California who wanted to outlaw the Morning After pill. Sorry, but these self-proclaimed (self-serving too) authorities who joyfully display their audacious legislation designed to Save Us From Ourselves? They profess to be small-government Republicans, but they lie; at least the Barney Franks of this world, the Dick Durbans, Nancy Pelosis and Pat Leahy types admit they're Big Government advocates. Their hypocrisy is right "out there," not camouflaged with smoke and mirrors like too many of the GOP who'd presume to tell us how they think we should live. These are sad times, people, and those pontificating, self-professed social conservatives have priorities that some of us find most repugnant. They're about as scary as the socialistic left. Not quite maybe, but close.

Brian| 12.1.08 @ 3:08PM

Yeah frost, the fact that half my income is confiscated for corrupt socialistic schemes I loathe pales in comparison to my concern for the ability of some dippy, hungover floozy, to obtain a morning after pill.

Thanks for clarifying the real issues. Let's keep Democrats in charge of things and keep funding their idiotic ideas.

Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 3:34PM

frost,

I think that you have Conservatives, most of whom are Republicans, and Liberal Democrats confused.

Let me deal with the abortion/ Pro-Choice problem first, as this seems to be one of your major concerns. Virtually all anti-abortion people simply believe that human life begins at conception rather than at birth. Apparently, Pro-Choice people believe just the opposite. Therefor, to the anti-abortion person, abortion is murder. While to the Pro-Choice supporter, it is simply cosmetic surgery. Neither faction will ever agree with the other. Now I doubt that you would argue for a person's right to choose to kill another human being other than in self defense. The Morning After Pill is a different story and one that requires further discussion.

The Anti-Wagering Bill was simply an attempt to keep gambling a local issue, rather than a national one. If you wish to gamble, most states have a variety of gambling venues available and they are increasing rather than decreasing.

Now let's take a look at the people who are attempting to take serious control of your life. Who is responsible for most, if not all, of the anti-smoking legislation in the U.S.,? In some places it is so bad, that smoking of tobacco products is prohibited in open air venues and even private homes. Who is banning transfats and high cholesterol meals? Who is attempting to stop logging, mining, oil drilling and manufacturing to "save" the environment? Who brought you man-made Global Warming and still insists that it exists, even as temperatures plummet across the globe? Who wants to nationalize your 401k? Who wants to nationalize health care, after being responsible for the high medical costs through third party payer systems? Who not only consistently fights against any welfare reform, but actively attempts to increase the number of people on the public dole? I'll give you a hint, Mainstream Liberal Democrats.

You will be happy to know that you, apparently, have priorities that certain social conservatives find repugnant. What you have to ask yourself, is are you going to lose more under the liberals or the conservatives? Pick a side, sir. For a Libertarian paradise in not an option.

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 3:47PM

Dai... the numbers are the numbers. That's your problem. It's not who's more intellectual, but who uses fact based analysis to make conclusions. The fact remains that polling showed that 2/3rd of independents said that Palin was not qualified and that this factor was the major reason they could not vote for McCain. You may not want to believe a red light really means "stop", but facts are stubborn things.

Brian| 12.1.08 @ 3:54PM

Well Bob, the left and their media sockpuppets have been calling Republicans stupid and unqualified since Eisenhower. You may recall him, he only helped us win WWII, which paled in comparison with all that Aldai Stevenson accomplished.

Fact is, the left will try and destroy any effective Republican and they will praise ineffective RINOs. We can't let so-called "independents" (most of whom are too far left to call themselves Democrats anyway), to choose our candidates.

Bob| 12.1.08 @ 4:10PM

Brian, in order to be a good political operative, you have to be dispassionate about beliefs and look at data. A simple model to choose the best candidate is not possible. There are a combination of factors including intelligence, knowledge, looks, height, weight, communication ability, and for executive positions, management ability and finally, ideology. There is no perfect candidate. We each have our list of important characteristics. For me, I want someone who is intelligent, knowledgeable, a good communicator and a pragmatist. If someone is able to analyze data without ideological bias, I believe they will come to the proper conclusions whether they are right or left. I would vote for a social conservative like Romney or Jindal because they demonstrate most of the attributes I hold high. For the same reason, I supported Obama over McCain.

You are correct that Obama has not shown much in his background. I was looking for two things from him -- how well he managed his campaign and whether he would take a pragmatic view and move to the center when he went into the general. He had the best run campaign I've ever seen and it was strategic and not tactical. He moved to the center in the general election even co-opting the tax issue from the Republicans.

I wish I had more to go on, but you take what you can get. McCain ran a terrible campaign, it was far more tactical than strategic, and his choice of a know nothing VP solidified the deal. Had he chosen Romney as a running mate, I would have voted for McCain.

The use of the word RINO is the most divisive term in the Republican lexicon. As long as you ideologues continue to use that term, you will lose -- big time.

Brian| 12.1.08 @ 4:25PM

Bob,

Do you really thing Obama "ran" his campaign?
If we want to elect the guy who ran the best campaign, seems to me David Axelrod would be President.

Obama was all over the 57 states making speeches, raising money, etc. He didn't have time to "run" his campaign even if he wanted to. There just wasn't time. He was just another guy who took orders as far as the campaign was concerned.

Palin "ran" a state government, rooted out corruption in her own party, managed a budget, etc., all things Obama and Biden have never done. That's an actual record of accomplishment Obama does not have.

Obama was able to co-opt the tax issue from the Republicans, basically because the media let him do it. What chance will do the Republicans have of every currying media favor to the extent Obama did in 2008? Not going to happen.

That's why we have to go around the media and forget appealing to "independents".

frost| 12.1.08 @ 4:33PM

Some interesting comments, Thomas -- and I sure have to agree that the chances of anti-abortion advocates to ever agree with pro-Choice folk are rare. Super rare in fact, if not impossible. But my problem with it all is the priorities factor -- that those earlier A-B-C things (gay stuff, stem-cells and abortion) appear to be more important to them than those other things like borders/Illegal Aliens, taxes/money, growth of government, defense, et al. You might almost say "to the exclusion of..."
No argument about trans-fats and the Global Warming fiasco, George Miller's proposed looting of our 401-K's, and the other restrictive/prohibitive measures you cited. We expect that of the Democrats. What bugs me is that the Republicans used to be, supposedly, the party of smaller government and individual responsibility - - "supposed to be," like Barry Goldwater, perhaps (who was pro-Choice) and not another bunch of know-it-all's who want the rest-of-us to live by their rules/codes-of-conduct.
So I guess that is why I'm of the Libertarian persuasion -- I don't want people telling us how we're supposed to conduct our lives, and I sure am not going to presume knowing how you should behave.
Incidentally, about that Internet Wagering mess, I wrote (then) Senator Bill Frist about those misplaced priorities (as I saw them) and he gave me a lecture on why gambling was baaaad, and they were just "looking-out-for" we unwashed. What a presumptuous fool!
So, no matter how you slice it, they all appear to be lacking 'way too many essential ingredients for me to vote for them, the demented ones and the sorry GOP (read somewhere that there's the stupid party and the certifiable lunatics) -- they all suck. Ron Paul, my congressman, comes close in some things, but wants an immediate pull-out from Iraq? We're there, why not victory first?
Held my nose and voted McCain. Actually, no, I voted anti-Obama (sure couldn't vote for Bob Barr, more Republican than the Republican candidate and hardly a Libertarian!) and against his socialist agenda. Would have preferred Rudy Guiliani. In some previous elections I wrote-in names like Dick Lamm, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul Tsongas and D. P. Moynahan, simply because the parties' offerings stunk so badly. Anyway, that's more than sufficient... we're off to Costa Rica in a couple weeks. Might end up buying a place there, maybe. Or Rio, a bit farther South, 'cept that Portuguese is a bitch of a language...

J.C.Eaton| 12.1.08 @ 6:03PM

Bob, Bob,Bob, just a few words of goodbye. Earlier you promised to tone down your repetitive[ceaseless actually] run-on asseveration about the so-called So-Cons. I accepted your admission that your stuff had become old and that you would attempt to rehabilitate. Alas, you old fooler; you didn't mean it. Different day..same old screed. Sarah Palin=dumb, So-Cons=dumb, Pro-life=dumb. Bob=smart, Bob=pragmatic[whatever the heck that might mean inBob-World]Bob=intellectual, Bob=Harvard. To all of this Bob old pal: I am satisfied you are simply a weary, tiresome, elitist. Your stuff is a one-trick pony and at long last I am quit of you. Bob, you are a bore. Get something new, sometime ,somehow, somwhere , for your own good if not the rest ofours. Best, Judge E

Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 6:37PM

frost,

Don't confuse the evangelical leadership with the average working conservative. I think that you would be surprised at just how much their outlook mirrors yours. I too have serious problems with most of the Republican politicians out there and for the same reasons. It is true that the abortion question and the fetal stem cell question [probably because it is used by certain liberal elements to justify abortion] seems to get the most play from the media, but the economy, border security, national security and government size and spending are very important to most conservatives.

As for relocating South of the Border, I hear that Costa Rica is all right, if you end up in one of the North American enclaves. A couple of friends checked out Panama and were favorably impressed. They said that the Yankee dollar goes a long way there and almost everyone speaks and understands English. Put it on your list of places to check out before you move.

Good luck.

frost| 12.1.08 @ 6:48PM

My wife has been to Costa Rica twice, me once. I've made two trips to Brazil, six weeks total of superb beach time and music listening, plus strolling around the Lagoa. Might try Panama in a year or three, possibly. Urca (part of Rio) remains my favorite place, though I understand that Florianopolis is super too.
That said, no argument on your other thoughts.

Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 7:22PM

Portuguese is a little different, but much easier to acclimate to than French, if you're conversant in Spanish. You'll be surprised how quickly you come to speak the local language when you have to. Enjoy.

Britcom| 12.1.08 @ 9:31PM

Bob and Frost,

You can both cram your bigoted atheist ideas up your respective a**es. You lot are not better educated or more intellectual than the rest of us, so get off your high horse. You are actually well educated in the kind of stupidity that declared the Titanic unsinkable. You have yet to learn that immorality, infanticide, and any other vileness that you feel compelled to engage in, comes with very high price for society and for our children. You won't get this until a crackhead breaks into your house rapes your wife and shoots you in the head. The rest of us get that, and are waiting for you lot to wake the f*ck up! I am starting to think that you lot are so sure that you are right and 2000 years of successful Christian civilization is wrong, that you are not merely mistaken, but rather you are evil and spend the majority of your time shaking your fist in the air daring God to strike you dead. If that is true, then you deserve to rot in hell.

You don't seem to have learned that you don't break God's laws, just like you don't break the law of gravity, it breaks you. Even though you lot are having a great old time on the way down, the end of your sociological plummet is rapidly approaching and you are not going to like it when you finally arrive at the bottom, and we are not going to like cleaning up the mess you left for the rest of us.

Here is wisdom:
Abortion murders a human being her own unique DNA and fingerprints.
Murder is unacceptable in a just society.
Gambling creates no new money, it is merely wholesale robbery by stealth.
Paper money isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Stem cells are great as long as their your own and you haven't killed anyone to get them.
No man is an island.
There is no "safe" sex.
Sodomy is copulation that has no legitimate purpose.
There is no such thing as gay love.
Pride goeth before a fall.
And,
There is nothing more dangerous than a fool in his folly.
Oh, yeah there is one more...
Education is not the same thing as wisdom, but you knew that already... didn't you.

Bob| 12.2.08 @ 7:20AM

Britcom -- thank you for proving my point so aptly about so-cons not being able to think. More appropriately, you mix up atheism with a secular view of government. Even O'Reilly believes that government should be secular even if the people involved are religious.

Judge E -- I've got a deal for you. If you guys will stop spouting moralistic religious beliefs and start arguing on the basis of reason, I will stop making comments about so-cons. However, you and others are proving why Republicans are becoming less and less relevant.

Britcom| 12.2.08 @ 3:30PM

Bob,

Apparently you are in denial that your own belief system is in fact a recognized religion.

The definition of "secular view" and "atheist" are the same. Secular is just a polite way of saying Godless, which is what an atheist is.

Bob| 12.2.08 @ 4:27PM

Britcom, please take off your blinders. You can be religious and believe that government should be a secular activity. Secular is related to a specific activity while "atheist" is clearly religious. There is such a thing as being a religious secularist. However, that is not what I'm talking about. Even O'Reilly, who is Catholic, believes government should be secular. Ask him...

Britcom| 12.3.08 @ 12:24PM

Bob,

Lets define religion here for you so you understand where you fit in.

There is no such thing as an absence of religion. All humans practice a religion. Whatever you sacrifice your day off to, whatever you sacrifice your extra money on, whatever you teach your kids to believe in, whatever you tell people they should sacrifice their time, their money, their children to... that is your religion.

Every religion has a god. Christians and Jews believe that the God of Abraham is God; Muslims have Allah as their god, other gods may be the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, Odin, the Emperor, the King, the mother, money, an idol of wood, stone, or gold, or a mountain or a volcano. Some of these gods may seem ridiculous, but most people look at other people's god as ridiculous.

Lets look at what people worship today: Science, Oprah, Satan, Britney, Obama, their car, alcohol, sex, drugs, music, a woman, a man, the State, the Earth, animals, fashion, the TV, and the most popular god in American culture today, the Self. Secularists believe in, and worship only themselves. They believe they are superior to all gods and that all other religions are based on myth and are therefore false.

I don't believe in your god, I certainly don't want the religion that worships your god being made the established religion of America. Our nation was founded on the doctrine that our government shall treat all religions with equal status, equal respect, and not favor one over the other or consider one superior over the other. It is obvious to me that you consider your religion superior to mine, and want to stamp out or hobble or discredit my religion. That makes you and people like you a danger to our freedom and our constitution and our unity as a nation.

Ms. Know| 12.6.08 @ 9:48PM

Yeah, and he and the left-wing illuminati are still performing like clowns trying any and everything to get that seat in Minn.