The American Spectator

Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 11:51PM

So.....McCain and Palin lost not because of their weak ideas and poor presentation of those ideas but because of ....

Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 11:54PM

Yes......the Republicans lost because of

a) The media. Katie Couric was mean to Sarah Palin.

b) George W Bush

c) ACORN

d) Satanists brainwashed the American people into becoming communists using television and marijuana

....and now we learn:

e) Obama is a Democrat and the Democrats are the party of the RICH!!!

Oh, yes. Because that's true. Everyone knows the Democrats are the party of the rich.

W. James Antle III| 11.15.08 @ 12:58AM

You'll think it too when you don't get anything you want from the Democrats. Little Debbie, now that Harding has let you out of jail can you tell the class why the Democrats so outraised the Republicans?

Bob| 11.15.08 @ 8:54AM

Again, RSM, you miss the point. While money did make a difference in organizing the ground game and letting Democrats compete in more states, they "earned" the money by getting lots of people -- far more than ever before -- interested in the election. This fund raising was a repudiation of the Republican party and the candidates.

Let's face it, the Democrats, let by Obama and his team, were brilliant strategists, used technology and the social structure of the internet wisely, and stayed on message. They were extremely disciplined which is unusual for Democrats. Obama is a very disciplined guy -- much more than practically any of the Republican candidates. If he runs his administration like he ran his campaign, it will be successful and further hurt the Republican party. Don't bet against a guy this smart and this disciplined. The only way to compete is to put up a candidate smarter and just as disciplined. That certainly leaves out both McCain and Palin by a longshot.

Deborah Durkee| 11.15.08 @ 9:50AM

Bob -- Yes, the Obama campaign was disciplined -- and crooked. They turned off the credit card verification process on their doner websites so they collected untold sums of money from who knows who? John Galt and various other "people" who didn't use their real names but were accepted nonetheless, and in small sums that didn't have to be reported and from who knows where? Anywhere in the world. If that's not illegal (which I'm sure it is) is should be and should be investigated, but won't be because Obama is a Democrat. If a Republican had done this, he would have been tossed in jail.

Thomas| 11.15.08 @ 10:34AM

Interesting post, but a bit dated. The only thing that it points up is that , once again, the McCain campaign was handcuffed, hogtied and stuffed in a trunk before the campaign even began; by the people running it.

Bob| 11.15.08 @ 11:23AM

Deborah -- you've been drinking the KoolAid from Fox News and right wing blogs again without thinking. The Obama campaign did not use the AVS system WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED. They did nothing illegal. Using AVS costs extra money for the campaign (I used to work in a credit card company). They were not required by the law to check donations below $200.

While I think the Obama campaign was sloppy, all campaigns get illegal donations and have for many years. The more money you collect, the more fraud you'll see.

That said, it would be hard to believe that there was more than 1% fraud. It is both a right wing and left wing trick to get their supporters excited by exaggerating an opponent's weakness and then getting their lemmings to think it was really important.

About half of Obama's donations were from large donors which were checked, by law, thoroughly. Realistically, this didn't affect the campaign.

If you are so naive to assume that both sides don't stretch the law to their advantage, then I feel sorry for you. Republicans have used voter suppression techniques for years while Democrats push voter registration to the limit. Both sides use dirty politics -- and I think you know that.

The fact remains that Obama changed campaign financing techniques forever. And it was a well run, strategic campaign that accomplished this. Give credit where credit is due.

crazy| 11.15.08 @ 11:23AM

So then this is really an Obama-recession now that the economic growth in the political and media sector due to his campaign activities has ended.

malm| 11.15.08 @ 12:59PM

Ads and action equal victory. Money buys both, but also required is the right attitude and mindset. The republican mindset is simply not to organize,but depend on rugged individualism. This will not work. Rugged individualists must join together, and fight together. This is how our military works. All sorts of folks with different ideas on say abortion,or income inequality work together,and win. It means having many big tents and joining to fight a greater evil than the evil of having a tolerant political platform in the name of unity. This is what the democrats did.As much as some people did not agree with them on a number of issues, they voted democrat against a greater evil-namely the GOP. How this came to pass will take honest self examination, and listening to people who believe we are not good for them, and America. As long as we project an attitude of contempt and arrogance for the people we need to win over(the Limbaugh attitude), we get crushed. First, admit it we need those RINOS after all. They really were not so bad in retrospect, now be honest, you miss Mike Dewine. But no, you all curse them and jeer.If you can live with under 30 in the senate after 2012,and 150 0r less in the house, then be angry, and close minded. I guess the beatins will just have to continue until morale improves.

Eugene Debbs| 11.15.08 @ 1:07PM

Take from me, here is a liberal's wish list:

1. Conservatives chase David Brooks from their midst and include a copy of his columns in their next book burning;

2. They blame McCain's defeat on ACORN and Obama's war chest;

3. They blame McCain's defeat on the media being mean to Sarah Palin;

4. Sarah Palin is considered the de facto head of the party;

5. You blame moderate Republicans and keep undercutting them so they lose.

6. You keep up the rhetoric about immigrants and immigration. (Not that you maintain a principled stand a boarder security, but that you keep up with the attacks on the character of people who have crossed into this country to work their behinds off like you could never dream of working.)

Good luck, amigos.

Thomas| 11.15.08 @ 5:47PM

Mr. Debbs,

First, the Conservatives are not going to chase anyone from the Party. Because the Conservatives simply don't care. The Republican Party has never been the Conservatives' Party, as evidenced by the fact that the Republican leadership and most of the Republican politicians do not even attempt to implement the conservative tenants of the Party platform.

Second, though Acorn [vote fraud in general], Obama's war chest [a significant portion of which was garnered illegally] and the media [the MSM proved itself to be the PR firm for the Obama campaign] were all factors in the McCain loss; the blame has to rest squarely upon the people running the campaign, including the Republican leadership whose totally ridiculous practice of allowing non-party members to vote in primaries and caucuses allowed McCain to clinch the nomination.

Third, Sarah Palin is not the head of the Republican party, de facto or otherwise. She appears to be a very popular figure, but that is all that she is at the moment.

Fourth, moderate Republican politicians lose, because they can't attract either the necessary conservative or moderate voters to allow them to beat liberal Democrats.

Last, remember what happened to the nearly bi-partisan immigration amnesty bill? So many voters, from both sides of the political spectrum, objected that not even liberal Democrats could vote for it. The character of illegal immigrants is not at issue, though it is applicable in some cases. What is at issue is that there are several million people [somewhere between 12 and 20 million depending on your source] who broke the law to enter this country, continued to violate the law to stay here and many are violating the law to work here. We are just asking everyone to obey the law. If obeying the law is too tough for you, amigo, you are free to move to Juarez.

Now, the McCain campaign lost because the candidate and his campaign staff proved to be totally inept. So it might be a good idea if the leadership of the republican Party, whoever it turns out to be realizes that and finds candidates who can get elected and then re-elected. Quit blaming Conservatives.

BD57| 11.15.08 @ 6:45PM

Talk about a thread hijack ....

Any irony in Democrats, the party of "campaign finance reform," the central tenets of which are public financing & spending limits?

Obama's organization deserves credit for convincing that many people to contribute that much money.

It'd be nice if this would put a stake through the heart of "campaign finance reform" ... but it won't.

ruth| 11.16.08 @ 2:33AM

Obama is a common Chicago thug-just a little smoother. His corruption dwarfs the Clintons'. Didn't think that was possible. The DOW has dropped about 1500 points since his election--not a good omen, liberal trolls.

Eugene Debbs| 11.16.08 @ 3:13AM

Thomas :

All I can say is, I hope you speak for all conservatives.

Blaming the election's loss on anything but the ideas and their presentation is good news for the Democrats.

Take it from me.

After 2000, when people in my party were whining endlessly about the election being "stolen," I fought as vigorously against that as I could. If Gore couldn't win Tennessee, what was he running for president for anyway? A handful of electoral votes in Florida wasn't the issue.

You guys have to face it. Palin may be popular, but I think she's popular because she's a conservative man's Angelina Jolie. Fair enough. But I can think of dozens of people I know personally way more qualified to be president than that inarticulate woman.

I hope we'll be hearing lots more from her.

Thomas| 11.16.08 @ 10:42AM

Mr. Debbs,

I have no idea were the Republican Party is going in the next year. There is a power struggle in progress between those that wish to continue along the same road the Party has traveled for years and those that feel that embracing the values of the Conservative base will insure political victory.

As for Sarah Palin, she is a politician that resonates well with the people. She is not, currently, ready to function as President of the United States. But, then, neither is Barack Obama. She is much more important for what she represents. She represents the fact that the Republican Party must deal with the reality that they can not win without moving to the right. This terrifies liberals, the Democrat leadership and even the "moderate" leadership of the Republican party. So the unbridled attacks against Sarah Palin continue. She is a player in the Republican Party if she wants to be, so get used to it. If the Republicans go right, 2010 could very well be another 1994. Because Obama is totally unprepared for the storms that are already building on the international horizon.

Now, I personally am not concerned with the direction of the Republican Party at the moment. I am much more concerned if there will even be elections in 2010. Russian expansion, Chinese military build up, faltering economy, falling oil prices, a re-emergence of Chamberlain's Europe, Iranian economic collapse, all coupled with a US President who is already regarded as a weak appeaser is going to make for a tumultuous start for the Obama administration. I hope that he proves able to handle it. This doesn't even figure in potential destabilizing forces on the domestic scene.

The next 2 years should prove very interesting. Possible global military conflict, possible second American revolution, possible American socialist state, possible crippling global depression, possible wmd terrorist attacks on the US. Yes, interesting times we live in.

Bob| 11.16.08 @ 3:07PM

Thomas, I take issue with two of your comments regarding Palin. First, that she resonates well with people. This is untrue as polling indicates. She resonates well ONLY with social conservatives. That's why the Tina Fey impersonation "resonated" extremely well. Secondly, except for Steve Schmidt choosing her for VP, she is not a major player in the Republican party. As evidence of this, review what happened at the Republican governors conference this week. She gave a terrible speech with no analysis or recommendations and she was "dissed" by the other governor's who didn't give her any responsibilities in their group -- not even in their advisory group.

Every Republican operative close to her has tried to limit her access or hide her. Do you think they would have done that with Pawlenty or Romney or Huckabee? Not on your life.

ruth| 11.16.08 @ 4:08PM

Eugene, you will hear more--lots more from Governor Palin. Thanks for your interest and support.

Thomas| 11.16.08 @ 10:32PM

Bob,

Nice to hear from you again. Disagree all that you like. But virtually every one of your posts mentions... wait for it... SARAH PALIN. That's right, the one person that you say has no standing, is irrelevant and a passing fancy consumes an inordinate amount of your attention. Of such, are stalkers born.

By the way, she was dissed at the Governors' Conference because she is viewed as a threat to certain Governors with Presidential aspirations. If she were irrelevant no one would have bothered. Odd that nobody dissed Charlie Crist, isn't it?

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 7:38AM

Thomas, all overfought, ideological theories regress into a comical representative -- in this case Sarah. Using her is not stalking, she is a metaphor for the silliness to which the Republican party has declined. There is no proof of intelligent life within her head, just as there is no sign of intelligent life in the interest groups that have taken over the Republican party. Get back to conservative pragmatism with libertarian social values and you have a winning combination. Don't worry, the governors will get us there by 2016.