The American Spectator

Has a brain| 11.6.08 @ 1:40PM

Very few, if any, of the people you listed could conceivably have excited the base like Palin did. Ryan is a great guy though.

WJO| 11.6.08 @ 1:48PM

What none of you brainiacs seem to comprehend is the battlefield here. Obama is an historic candidate. The pull that moderates felt to elect an American of African descent who might be seen as an acceptable alternative was huge.

How do you shift votes from that pull? You don't do it by nominating another white guy to fill out the ticket.

Palin was a game changer because her position took away an argument about changing history that was one-sided and appealing.

In that light I put it as the only brilliant thing McCain did this campaign.

Has a brain| 11.6.08 @ 2:27PM

I keep saying it but I read this blog and am stunned by the banality and mediocre thinking of the bloggers here. Has National Review absorbed the entire GOP pundit talent pool? What a bunch of nothings.

M.Tobias| 11.6.08 @ 2:34PM

What is with you guys at the Spectator? John McCain was universally hated by conservative voters. and yet, he had to have a significant conservative turnout to have a chance of winning. That is what Sarah Palin provided. And something else, McCain and his campaign gave up in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana. Palin didn't.

So, without Palin, you have a Black man versus a White man promising virtually the same things and the MSM solidly in the tank for the Black man. Who do you think people are going to vote for?

Captain America| 11.6.08 @ 4:18PM

Twelve others who could have galvanized the base? I call this nonsense.

I don't know if you folks at American Spectator are entirely ignorant or woefully blind.

When Gov. Palin was nominated, the Obama people were panicked. Why? Because they ran focus groups to gauge Gov. Palin's impact. What they panicked about was that Gov. Palin was "just like them" and they didn't have an answer for that.

I seriously doubt Romney or any of the other 12 could have possibly solidified the base the way Gov. Palin did.

As for this nonsense about reaching out to moderates and independents, wasn't that McCain's job? After all, he not Palin was the guy who had Lieberman as his stage prop. He was the guy who has spent a career who could pull in the mods and indys.

Terrance Shuman| 11.6.08 @ 4:31PM

Mr. Hillyer needs a vacation if he thinks Kasich would have had anywhere NEAR the positive impact on the ticket that Palin had. Or perhaps he should just spend some time at a local Borders stacking copies of Kasich's book on the remainder table...

Forseti| 11.6.08 @ 5:05PM

You guys just don't get it. As a liberal democrat, I was ecstatic that Palin was the VP choice of the Right. She definitely solidifies your base but the rest of America is sick of the divisive, hateful, self righteous, nationalistic principles of the Republican base. I hope you do make her the linchpin of the Republican party. I can't wait to see the wheels come off again in 2012. We've only scratched the surface of what is sure to be a motherlode of character deficiencies in your dear Sarah.

Sickened| 11.6.08 @ 5:07PM

What Hillyer needs is some time in a nice padded cell. His blog posts on all things McCain have been increasingly deranged over this whole year. When McCain picked Palin he announced McCain had lost the election. Hillyer's biggest problem with Palin is that she was McCain's choice.

This pundits on this blog have sounded for months like a collection of extremist, unintelligent, splenetic third-party cranks. If they representative GOP political capital these days, we are near bankruptcy. They obviously have no clue about what is going on anymore. If we depend on Klein, Hillyer, Antle and the rest of the dunciad crew here, we are cooked.

ruth| 11.6.08 @ 6:18PM

You AmSpec writers are just more inside-the-beltway republicans. You don't have a clue what's going on with the base. John Kasich? You've got to be kidding! He's a nice guy but so squishy and boring.

A to the F| 11.6.08 @ 9:01PM

Look, I like Sarah Palin as much as the next conservative, and I initially thought her selection was a brilliant move, but the MSM's intent to destroy her combined with the McCain campaign's rather feeble and ham-handed rollout of her turned off a lot of the undecided and independent voters who might have otherwise voted for Mac. I know this because over the last two days I have had almost 20 people tell me that she was the reason they didn't vote for Mac -- these people being a wide range of Jews, women, Muslims, Lesbians, and good ol' moderate whites men. No joke, no BS.

ruth| 11.6.08 @ 9:27PM

McCain lost because he's a moderate, not because of Governor Palin. She's the only reason he didn't REALLY get blown-out.

g miller| 11.6.08 @ 10:43PM

"Palin is a great lady with a great future, but she wasn't ready this time around, and it was unfair to thrust her into a position where she could get "Quayled."

You said it all right there. Instead of throwing Sarah in at the last minute, a little grooming and campaigning experience on the national level first would have made a huge difference.

Spicy Joker| 11.6.08 @ 11:08PM

Palin is the reason McCain didn't get blown out, but she's also one of the reasons he didn't win. Fair or not, she became a laughingstock. If McCain had nominated someone who appealed to both conservatives and independents, McCain could've won.

William| 11.7.08 @ 1:15AM

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Palin was boxed in by the McCain handlers. She was plugged into the campaign and instructed to learn campaign talking points. No question that she was ill-prepared for her interviews. But if you step back and examine her record in Alaska, if you listen to interviews when she is relaxed and comfortable (go to Nov. 6 radio interview www.bobandmark.com) she is intelligent and fluent. As Governor she has not been polarizing but rather a consenus builder. Her interview with Couric was brutally edited (one can view the entire unedited interview with a little searching) and she was attempting to respond with talking points she had rehearsed. She was in a stressful situation and appeared to go into "brain-freeze." This happened to none other than Ronald Reagan in his first debate with Mondale when his handlers had plied him with an overload of statistics, he fumbled his way through the entire debate. I believe Palin has the ability to recover from the media gang-rape and build her persona. Remember, the inexperienced but intellectual Obama has had 2 years on the national stage to build his image. Palin now has an opportunity to be herself and provide her own political perspective. She also has a solid core of true-believers with which to launch a grass-roots campaign.

ruth| 11.7.08 @ 1:27AM

If Gov. Palin studies and prepares for the next four years and then is allowed to frame herself and her message, I think she will be formidable. She was thrust into an impossible situation--and even then she electrified the base. Plus, in four years, she'll be ready for that rodent, Katie Couric.

J David| 11.7.08 @ 8:32AM

We *conservatives* DO NOT WANT "moderates", "independents", or any other identities, of any stripe or minority, who are not voting for CONSERVATIVE (fiscal and social) PRINCIPLED IDEOLOGY. Reagan won landslides because he DID NOT COMPROMISE PRINCIPLE!! He brought the outsiders in, he didn't shed conservative principles to chase down and bribe his enemies to follow him. Bush was supine and *bi-partisan* "new tone" and look where it got him. The compromisers can just shut up, because the NYTimes-chosen Juan Amnesty McVain just got his clock cleaned and he is a RINO, to the max. You win by beating the enemy, and commie-lib Dems are the enemies of freedom, and thus of America, and they, and all of their fellow-traveling RINO buddies need to be denounced EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK!

Bob| 11.7.08 @ 9:10AM

Did any of you live through the Reagan era? Reagan didn't win because of his conservative principles, he won because he was non-threatening, had excellent communication skills, and gave America reassurance when it was most needed. Reagan came from Hollywood and had loads of liberal, pro-choice friends who knew he was not a threat. This revisionist history in the memory of Reagan is appalling. Reagan was a uniter - Palin is a divider. Reagan would NEVER have talked about "real America" -- he thought all America was real.

Bob| 11.7.08 @ 9:21AM

Regarding Palin -- I think she was the only one listed who could have excited the hard right social conservatives. Because of her, the donations gained by the McCain and RNC increased dramatically. The problem is that the reverse is also true, she was the only one that could severely turn off moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. These are the two sides of a coin that is minimalizing the Republican party -- the more power the social conservatives have, the less the party will be able to cobble together a governing majority.

Again, I think that if the party coalesces around the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and national defense and take out the social conservative platform, the more the party will grow.

Barbara | 11.7.08 @ 10:28AM

Omitting the social conservatives would be making the same colossal error that conservatives made by ceding the media and the academy to the liberals. Culture matters, enormously. Stable families are much better able to fend for themselves than single parents, and are therefore less likely expect the government to be an indulgent father with deep pockets. Stable families are also much more likely to instill their children with conservative values--something they won't be exposed to in school. Conservative churches hammer home the point that Jesus preached service to the poor as an individual responsibility, not a government program.

Those of you who are more libertarian might also consider how much the unintended consequences of the sexual revolution have advanced the liberal agenda. The African-American illegitimacy rate is 70%; 90% in the inner city. Illegitimacy is also rising among the white & Latino lower middle class. This is a cultural problem, not one which can be solved entirely by free market economics.

Consider also that in many ways , the concerns of social conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are freedom issues. Religious speech has been stifled in so many ways--to the point where one of my children said "God bless you" to a classmate who sneezed, and was immediately reprimanded by the vice-principle, on the grounds that it was offensive! Public sex
education, which has done nothing to diminish the teen-age pregnancy rate (quite the contrary, in fact) interferes with the right of parents to bring up their children according to their own values.

Finally, you might bear in mind John Adams statement that "this Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and none other." I fear that he is being proved right.l

Bob| 11.7.08 @ 11:19AM

Barbara -- consider that most of the work that Obama did as a community organizer was through churches. You should support him for that. McCain cheated on his first wife and Palin's first child was the result of pre-marital sex. Obama is the far better example of religious principles applied to marriage and family. Obama spoke loudly about absent fathers in the African-American community. If you are really interested in family values, Obama is, by example, the better choice. Right?

The problem with social conservatives is that they are not really conservative. They believe in governmental intervention as it relates to their religious beliefs. True conservatives believe in non-intervention in all aspects of government -- one of the founding principles of limited governance.

Cultural problems are best addressed through example and Obama, and his family orientation, will be a good one. Your major problem with Obama is simply one issue -- abortion. He believes that should be left up to individuals, their religion and their doctors. On all other cultural issues, he aligns with you far more than McCain.

Darcy2| 11.7.08 @ 1:17PM

A church which permits itself to be used by a self-serving, self-promoting schemer for the purpose of muscling city administrators to acheive the redress of perceived wrongs has lost its mission.

See for yourself. Go into any of those churches and ask its members, "How must I be saved?" The reply will be: by being and doing "good" things, and the good will be defined as some form of social justice.

The social gospel leads many astray and diverts attention from this one truth: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast."

The mission of the church is to preach that message. When the church instead adopts a social agenda, it ceases being a church and becomes just another philanthropic organization. Furthermore, it becomes easy prey to "community organizers."

ruth| 11.7.08 @ 2:15PM

Reagan was successful precisely because of his principles. Style could not have defeated the USSR.

Barbara Clearfield| 11.7.08 @ 2:21PM

Bob--Ditto what Darcy 2 said. Nor am I impressed by a church whose preacher spews hatred and racism,whether black or white. The good works don't outweigh the weekly dose of poison.

Since you've never met me, I can't imagine how you know that my only problem with Obama is abortion (or, in his case, outright infanticide Sorry, but I'm a social conservative who believes in limited government and fiscal conservatism--and I can assure you that I'm not the only one. I have other problems with Obama--like his rejection of the guiding principles of our Constitution (what he terms 'negative rights'), his economic proposals,which include nearly every error the government made after the 1929 crash, his radical background, his efforts to stifle dissent during his campaign, his fraudulent fundraising---do I need to go on?

McCain's family values leave a great deal to be desired--but McCain was not picked by conservatives. I will remind you that until Florida, he only received 1/3 of the Republican vote--the rest were cross-overs and independents.
As for Palin, Christianity is above all a religion of redemption. We all sin--it's how we pick ourselves up and continue that matters. (And since the Palins gave their child life, a stable home with married parents, and a Christian upbringing, ,I think her family values are just fine.)

Bob| 11.7.08 @ 3:42PM

Darcy2 - I grew up in a black community in South Central Los Angeles and tutored children in the community. Believe me, your type of church would not work anywhere near as well in that community as one with a social agenda. Until you actually live in a community like that and experience it yourself, it is certainly intolerance the would prevent it from being accepted.

Ruth -- Reagan was NOT elected because of his principles, and to believe so is revisionist history. Most people don't vote on principles, they vote for the person. I was a young father then working on the ground to elect Reagan. I remember looking at the exit data and being surprised that principle did not enter into the equation for most voters -- they just liked the guy.

Barbara - Obama never rejected the guiding principles of our Constitution -- you just don't understand negative rights. Here's what he actually said:

"Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Did you know that "free speech" is a negative right?

Regarding his economic proposals, I assume that Rush and Hannity did not explain them to you properly. There would be tax cuts for the vast majority of people in this country. An increase of 4% in the MARGINAL tax rate for high income people would in no way match the mistakes made during the depression in 1930. Regarding his "radical" background, every legitimate fact checking organization (which leaves out Fox) has said that the Ayers connection was highly tenuous and recently Ayers confirmed that. As far as anyone can tell, he did not fraudulently raise money even though he did go back on his semi-pledge to use public financing. You continue to spew untruths and that does not help any of us.

By the way, if Christianity is "above all a religion of redemption", that would apply to Obama as well. Palin did a great job of raising her daughter to have a baby out of wedlock as well -- just like her mother.... But I guess that is just not an example of "family values".

ruth| 11.7.08 @ 5:16PM

Bob, re-read my post. I said Reagan was successful because he was principled, I didn't mention the election. You didn't address my point: Personality could not have defeated the Soviet Union. To argue thus is idiocy. You are just another liberal-hater bashing Palin. Loser.

Darcy2| 11.7.08 @ 5:30PM

With all due respect, Bob, your reply merely illustrates my point.

To people, everywhere, whether rich or poor, the church's mission is to preach forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ.

When its mission BECOMES making this world a better place, then it has lost its way.

The world may become a better place, for individuals or societies -- that is icing on the cake. But that is not the goal of the church; if it is, then that church is preaching another gospel.

Barbara | 11.8.08 @ 1:42AM

Bob--Obama criticized the "constraints" that the Founders had imposed on the Constitution, and also criticized the Constitution for not providing for "positive rights". I do indeed realize that free speech is what Obama pejoratively describes a "negative right". Conservatives call it limited government, and think it's a good thing. You simply cannot have what Obama calls "positive rights" and also have limited government.

Do you think I'm stupid because I'm a woman? Or is there some other reason that you think that I am entirely dependent on the tutelage of Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity? We have, at the moment, the most progressive tax system in the Western world. The top 5% of all tax payers pay 70% of all income tax, while the bottom 50% pay only 4%. The top marginal rates are deceptive, because once you make more than $125,000 or so, you start to lose your deductions. Adding a greater burden to those already paying most of the taxes would probably be foolish at any time, but especially so at a time when it is vitally important that people continue to finance businesses through investments. But taxes are not the only thing at issue--just as Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Obama has promised his own form of protectionism with his threats to dismantle NAFTA and punish corporations who build plants overseas. His plan to tax coal-burning plants into bankruptcy is possibly without precedent (although in practice, that's what we did to many of the railroads)--but certainly isn't a formula for prosperity, either.

I'm afraid you're the one who's "spewing" untruths about Obama and Ayers, courtesy of the New York Times. I spent much of my life reading the Times--I remember when it was a great paper, I remember when it stopped printing the full texts of speeches by members of both parties , and I remember the day I finally decided to cancel my subscription, because it was no longer reliable enough to have any real value as a newspaper.

It has been proved conclusively that Obama's website accepted contributions that were routinely bounced at the Clinton and McCain websites--donations under false names, donations
from multiple names using the same credit cards, and donations from overseas.

I would never suggest that Obama is not redeemable; I don't know why you need to point that out to me. I'm sorry if we social conservatives are not as Puritanical in real life as we are in your fantasies. Of course, we'd prefer that sex wait until marriage--but if it doesn't, at least we know that we should welcome the new (and innocent life) with joy and love, instead of killing it.

Bob| 11.8.08 @ 10:53AM

Darcy 2 -- If I were to read your statements critically, I would assume you don't agree with Bush's faith based initiatives, i.e., working through churches to make the world a better place. Yours is not the only religion and not the only way to view the purpose of the church (or in my case, synagogue).

Barbara -- impressive and well thought out response. However, you have depended too much on the talking points. When you consider taxation, you must look at total taxation, and not just the income tax. That would include payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, real estate taxes, etc. That's where your taxation argument fails. The dollars in my bank account don't care where the taxation comes from, they still must be paid. Payroll, sales, and cap gains taxes are regressive. These are offset by income taxes which are progressive. I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but when I looked at it a few years ago, the total tax burden on lower income levels was significantly higher than high income individuals. As an example, Warren Buffet's tax burden is far less than his secretary's tax burden. Most political commentators really don't understand economics -- I was trained in the field. As a percentage of GDP, our tax burden as a country is not as ominous as your talking points would indicate:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

And yes, you are spewing untruths about Obama and Ayers -- and I've confirmed this with several non-partisan fact checking sites. And campaigns ALWAYS receive improper/illegal donations. The more money you collect, the more improper donations you will receive. The McCain campaign also receives many illegal donations. It is just a fact of fund raising.

The problem I have with social conservatives is that they demonize Democrat opponents while overlooking the foibles of Republicans. There is no question that Obama has lived up to religious principle in his personal life far more than McCain or Palin. You just don't like his pro-choice stance which I consider to be both principled and correct. I don't want you or other social conservatives to tell me what my morality should be. I will make that decision basis my religious/moral theology. The same is true of Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, and I think, Condolezza Rice. There is significant intolerance in the beliefs of social conservatives, and I consider that to be morally wrong.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 3:14PM

Bob, you are such a joke. Your guy won, why not just go away? You project onto us what you are: intolerant and mean-spirited. You are not going to change our minds, we are going to fight your Marxist messiah every step of the way. Conservatives become stronger when faced with adversity. Just watch us.

Bob| 11.8.08 @ 4:38PM

Ruth, let me give you a definition of intolerance from the dictionary:

"unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters"

I am certainly willing to listen to you, but you want me to "go away". You seem to be the definition of "intolerance".

Obama is not "my guy", people like Tom Ridge, Colin Powell and Romney are "my guys". McCain and Palin are far from "my guys". I gave my reasons for voting for Obama, but you, being intolerant, didn't listen.

Furthermore, you certainly don't understand Marxism. Obama is a capitalist is almost every sense of the term. Please don't use terms you don't understand. Here is a concise explanation of Marxism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Now to your use of the word "messiah". Any charismatic figure can be argued to have messianic traits, Obama included. Other messianic personages would be people like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Reagan, Kennedy. If you go back to Reagan's time, you'd see that he was certainly more messianic in nature and following as Obama. I hope you are not using this word in relation to Obama because of the color of his skin.

I will continue to post, Ruth, to challenge your intolerance. Have a great day!

tolerant ruth| 11.8.08 @ 7:04PM

Intolerant Bob, you can't educate me because I am already so much smarter than you. I think you need a girl (boy) friend to go out with and have a good time; or perhaps you should restart your meds. Life is too short to pretend that you are not an Obama troll. In short, you are a joke.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 8:25PM

Hey, Bob the liberal tool, the only reason you are allowed to post on this conservative site is because of our .......TOLERANCE!!!! But you are probably too stupid or too blinded by you liberal hate to see.

Bob| 11.9.08 @ 9:23AM

Ruth, so let me get this straight -- you are brilliant and tolerant!!! I'm also glad to know that you OWN this CONSERVATIVE site. I didn't know that you were a major stockholder in The American Spectator.

If you notice, intelligent conservative journalists, by and large, refuse to address the problem of the Republican party being overtaken by intolerant social conservatives who are driven by belief over reason. I have the same problem with the uber-liberal left.

As an example, there is no logical reason to support Palin on the basis of her knowledge or her positions. But she is supported by you and other social conservatives because she is a right wing social conservative. We know she lacks knowledge and we don't have any evidence of her positions. She has not given any foreign policy speeches, has not been questioned on trade policy, has not been asked about cap and trade which McCain supported, has not chimed in about immigration policy, has not shown she has any understanding about the problems of big cities where 80% of our population lives, etc., etc., etc. She has spoken about some of these things in her speeches, but then again, they were written for her by McCain's people. You cannot support her based on reason or logic, only projection and belief. As Reagan used to say, trust but verify. I wish we could do the latter, don't you?

I know you don't care, but the rest of the world now sees the Republican party as a group of religious whackos who eschews knowledge and intellect. You and others have demeaned conservative scholars like Will and Brooks. You are happy to put forth mediocre candidates who did not do well in school. Well, I'm not. I think the President should be the best and the brightest. I value education and the hard work it takes to make good grades. I value people who have the intellectual curiosity to learn about the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, geography, English, etc. We have many of those people in the Republican party, but intelligence seems to scare you and other social conservatives.

WRW| 12.20.08 @ 9:37PM

"Conservative scholars like Will and Brooks" Good one. You can certainly say favorable things about Will and Brooks (although I have no use for either, one is pompous and the other unmoored), but "scholar" is not a word that by any stretch can be applied to them (except in the shallow Washington, D.C. world where Tim Russert was considered an insightful and learned man.)

As for Palin, she failed first because of McCain (a corporatist and warmonger) and second because of her own shortcomings--not least of which is the utter contradiction of purporting to support the Western Christian tradition, while, as a woman, ambitiously pursuing power to the detriment of your family.

In the end, though, no VP choice could have made a difference. McCain was a doomed candidate, especially when the economy became the focus of the campaign.