The American Spectator

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 8:52AM

Again, another right wing "conservative" who doesn't understand how to do analysis. (I wonder how many of these bloggers took math in college). The fact is that Ohio has had huge job losses in recent years probably in the range of 300,000 jobs. People who don't work have a poorer voting record than people who do. Furthermore, we don't know if many of those people have moved. Jumping to conclusions without rigorous analysis seems to be a pattern around here for trying to prove your point. This probably comes from listening to Limbaugh too much whose analytical ability goes back to the caveman era. I guess it's true that all of the smart people are leaving the party.

J David| 11.19.08 @ 9:43AM

I am 45 years old, and have pulled the lever ONLY for Republicans through my entire voting life. I have never, and will never pull the lever for ANY commie-lib Dem to the day I die, but this time I voted for Baldwin(and all the rest of my vote were for the GOP candidates)as I swore nearly a decade ago that I would never vote for the faux "Republican" Juan Amnesty McVain, the Soro-owned commie-lib Dem ally. I have no doubt that there were many of same sentiment out there, and you are dead-on right Mr McCain.

Eric Dondero| 11.19.08 @ 9:48AM

Or voted for Libertarian Bob Barr.

Henry| 11.19.08 @ 9:50AM

I think there are a few more contortions and twists in Bob's analysis compared to Brendan Miniter's. If you didn't realize the palpable lack of enthusiasm for McCain among conservatives, you weren't paying attention. I will take Miniter until proven otherwise.

Interested Conservative| 11.19.08 @ 9:52AM

Bob - you may be right, or you just may be sitting farther back in the cave. If analysis is called for canyou offer any? Ohio has "lost" jobs, as well as created them - is the 300,000 net or gross? Further, do you have any support for the "unemployed don't vote as regularly" assertion?

For a state with a relatively stable population over the last century, waxing and now waning around 10m +/-, a drop off of 400k votes is noteworthy - which seems to be the point of the comment. While it may not explain the election in three sentences, neither does "hope and change".

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 10:05AM

Interested - What I dislike are these over-simplistic, uneducated answers that make the Republican party less intelligent. There is a dumbing down of the party including the beratement of writers like Brooks and Will and listening to the uneducated analyses of Limbaugh and Hannity. And of course, thinking that Palin is qualified to be VP.

To your point regarding low income voters, here is the information I found when researching my comment:

"Low-income voters -- those at the bottom third of the wage scale -- have a voter turnout rate of under 50 percent, according to the Census Bureau. Those living under the poverty line voted at a rate of only 38 percent in 2000, Census reports indicate. Middle- and upper-income voters had a turnout above 60 percent."

Polo| 11.19.08 @ 10:20AM

Please understand that this is coming from one of these under-edumicated conservative Neanderthals, that drinks from the trough rather than the martini circuit with Brooks, Will, and Bob over there (who's conceit seems rather curious), but I wouldn't have voted for McCain if Palin wasn't on the ticket.
I think she was far more qualified to be Vice President than the President-elect is for his office.

Sheryl| 11.19.08 @ 11:16AM

This comes from a Western Pennsylvania clinger to religion and guns who is even more bitter than before the election. While I know I could never hope to be as 'smart' as a Democrat, my three short explanations for the elction are: 1. The media (aka the Obama cheering section), 2. Catholics who do not understand what they profess to be their faith, and 3. White guilt and the desire to appear "progressive."

JoeD| 11.19.08 @ 11:47AM

"And of course, thinking that Palin is qualified to be VP. "

No. Uneducated is thinking *Obama* is qualified to be president. Palin had better qualifications for the top job than *any* of the big four candidates. She's smart, she can learn about specific issues which her previous experience hasn't brought her into contact with. How is Obama going to learn how not to be a socialist in his basic thinking? What would *any* of the senators bring to the job on day one in the way of executive experience, making actual decisions and living with the consequences - something none of them has needed to do in careers spent entirely in plush debating societies where no one is ever held accountable.

Will has *always* been a squish and Brooks has never impressed me. They are the conservatives that liberal TV schedulers love because they aren't particularly conservative - can you say, "John McCain"? I knew you could. Why should we defer to the "wisdom" of the kind of RINOs that helped con us into accepting a RINO nominee. We lost because we ran a me-too campaign with Mr. Liberal Lite at the head of our ticket, not because he picked a genuine conservative to appease the base. If he' d gone with anyone *other* than Palin McCain would have lost in a McGovern-sized landslide - and deservedly so.

Dave Weigel| 11.19.08 @ 11:49AM

Miniter has his facts wrong. Ohio had a vast number of provisional ballots, which are still being counted, while CNN has stopped paying attention to that count. Right now Obama has won 2,784,344 Ohio votes, up more than 43,000 on John Kerry, although still less than George W. Bush won last time.

james23| 11.19.08 @ 12:08PM

Bob, don't you ever tire of coming to conservative blogs and calling people dumb? Wouldn't you be more at home at a RINO blog?

The one positive result of the 08 election is that Bob's RINO's are now nearly extinct. those that remain need to get a clue and join up with their fellow Libs in the Dem party, and enjoy their brief time in the majority.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 12:22PM

JoeD -- I remember a President I voted for talking about "trust but verify". The verification of Palin showed that she had very little knowledge about any national or international issues. Don't you think that if the campaign thought she was really qualified they would have scheduled at least one press conference, more interviews, and made her more available to the public? The reason social conservatives like her is that they eschew intellect and knowledge in favor of belief.

James23 - I am a conservative and believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense. "Social conservatives" are the true RINO's since they want to increase governmental oversight on their social agenda and are intolerant of the beliefs of others. That is NOT consistent with a true conservative agenda. True conservatives have a natural streak of libertarianism which aligns with the belief of limited government.

Therefore, YOU should move to a religious blog and leave conservatism to the TRUE conservatives like me. Until the party puts up a true intelligent conservative who is not overtaken by an intolerant social agenda, I won't vote for the party's nominee. I don't want someone who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class who couldn't choose some with any significant knowledge and with the inability to put together a coherent sentence.

ds80| 11.19.08 @ 12:45PM

Bob: "... had very little knowledge about any national or international issues."

That must be a comment about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as well, right? Governor Palin is at least as qualified as either of these two.

Your true anti-religion colors show through:
"eschew intellect and knowledge in favor of belief"
"intolerant social agenda"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Laissez-faire "it's okay if it doesn't affect me" mores do not a moral society make.

Crusader| 11.19.08 @ 1:17PM

Bob was this your attempt at irony?

"I don't want someone who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class who couldn't choose some with any significant knowledge and with the inability to put together a coherent sentence."

Bob you're about as TRUE a conservative as your hero Barry O is. You are a lib to the core. You spout off lib talking points, and no matter what the subject is you always bring it back somehow to how stupid Sarah Palin is or how intolerant social cons are. You deny the reality that off the 'prompter your boy sounds worse than Bush on his worst day.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 1:28PM

ds80 - please give me a break! Carter and Clinton went through a large number of debates and press conferences so that we could make an informed judgment. Palin went through one debate where she refused to answer certain questions.

Regarding a "moral society". Who's morality? The Taliban would say they had a moral society according to the Quran. I am not anti-religion. I am against YOU placing your religion above mine and forcing others, including atheists, to tolerate YOUR morality.

In our society, our religious forefathers thought it was acceptable to enslave blacks and count them as 3/5ths of a white man. It was acceptable for women not to vote, and blacks could not marry whites. Who's to say that your specific morality is right?

Politics should stay out of the religion business -- separation of church and state, etc.

Bob| 11.19.08 @ 1:30PM

Crusader, I knew you could not put reason above belief. You would call anyone who is pro-choice as liberal. There are a large number of more libertarian Republicans who believe otherwise.

Enlighten yourself and you shall be saved.

Interested Conservative| 11.19.08 @ 2:18PM

Bob - I'll leave the general vociferation to others, but you claim Carter and Clinton went through "a large number" of debates and so forth. Care to back that up more precisely? I thought Jimmy won to exorcize Nixon, and Bill cause "it's the economy, stupid". Clever, I suppose, but hardly intellectual pantheons, as we all learned the hard way.

Sarah's as thoroughly qualified as need be considering the precedents and competition.

Also, disagree with Mac as you see fit (you've plenty of company around here) but the "5th from the bottom" crack is too revealing. It's best used elsewhere.

ruth| 11.19.08 @ 8:01PM

Bob, how could you ever defend Jimmah 'malaise' Carter? Your bonifides as a RINO are seriously in question.