Inexplicably, Republicans held up George W. Bush as their presidential candidate for not one, but two terms. That was followed by the shocking encore of John McCain. Some Republicans are just now admitting that John McCain was a flop as a candidate. Why did they wait? They knew that at least a year ago.If Republicans really want to have a competitive party, they have got to stop listening to the Establishment fringe and offer an alternative. Socialism lite is a weak attempt at uniqueness. John McCain had no chance of beating Barack Obama. Given a fair shake by the media and the Republican Establishment, Ron Paul could have run circles around our President-elect.
Answer me honestly now--on election day (and even months before) did you ever really get the feeling that Barack Obama was going to lose? Why should
And which candidate really represented Reagan principles? That would be the candidate that Glenn Beck kept trashing throughout the campaign--until he sought out that now former candidate's expertise when the economy began to tank, just like Ron Paul predicted it would.
Americans have voted for a Bush clone? McCain and his Establishment Republican backers offered no alternative. The outcome was not surprising.Following the election, Senator Jim DeMint said:
"Republicans suffered very serious setbacks in the last two years in both the Senate and the House. We have got to clean up, reform and rebuild the Republican Party before we can ask Americans to trust us again. This must begin with either a change of command at the highest levels or our current leaders must embrace a bold new direction."Why, Senator, did you wait until now to say this?
"Republicans must admit the Wall Street bailouts were a trillion-dollar bust, and immediately fight for free-market solutions that create jobs and increase freedom," DeMint said. "This election reflects a failure of Republicans to keep their conservative promises."
Rush Limbaugh was quick to criticize:
Radio host Rush Limbaugh... blasted John McCain's presidential campaign as weak and said Barack Obama's election as president is an opportunity to purge the Republican Party of candidates who abandon conservative principles.I wonder, then, why Rush Limbaugh
"McCain's whole campaign was a concession speech," said Limbaugh in his post-election analysis. "We've now demonstrated to everyone how to lose."
If the minions continue to cow to the Establishment faction of the Republican party, they will be suckered again and again.
belittled the only real Republican in the bunch, Ron Paul?Yesterday, Glenn Beck stated that
John McCain was one of the worst presidential candidates conservatives could have ever fielded. John McCain was also not the choice of conservatives. John McCain, not the standard bearer of conservative principles. Huh. Why vote for liberalism light when you can have a real socialist? It was John McCain that lost last night, the values and the principles of Ronald Reagan's Republican party were not rejected because there was no candidate representing them.And which candidate really represented Reagan principles? That would be the candidate that Glenn Beck kept trashing throughout the campaign--until he sought out that now former candidate's expertise when the economy began to tank, just like Ron Paul predicted it would.
We've gotten ourselves into this mess because of 8 years of fake
Republicanism. Aside from Alan Keyes having been the Republican nominee in 2000, the best thing that could have happened for our country was to have Al Gore beat George Bush. Not only would we not have had a senseless war in Iraq, we wouldn't have given millions of Americans and people around the world the wrong impression about what conservatism and Republicanism is all about.In the coming days, Republicans are going to get everything they deserve. As long as they field "I'm just like the Democrats" Republicans, it's going to stay that way. If the minions continue to cow to the Establishment faction of the party, they will be suckered again--every four years on the dot.
I think there are at least two major angles that help explain why the Republicans constitute such a ridiculous party now.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think it's about money. Much of the same money is backing both (huge, Establishment, game-playing, back-room-dealing) parties, so I almost think they (the money people) hedge their bets by backing candidates that will further their agenda, one way or another. I mean, liberals want to outright yield to world opinion, and Bush wants to be part of a North American Union. I think those are essentially the same - just one option is "sneakier," and possibly a little slower.
Second, I think it's because most conservatives really try to play nice and give up a little ground so that they won't be called racists/bigots/homophobes/hatemongers, whereas liberals just keep taking all the ground given. It's the mailbox analogy - in physics & math, you can keep going half the distance to the mailbox, but you never actually *reach* it (you never get to zero by halving things). But you get close enough to get the mail. Since only one part of the spectrum keeps yielding instead of taking the dishonest media heat, we just keep pulling more and more to the left - and now we're close enough to call ourselves a socialist nation.
However, this election seems to have galvanized a lot of people - I know it's helped me straighten up and be willing to be called a nutjob, racist, whatever. I know I'm not, and that's finally good enough, since it's more important to do what's right than be called right.
Just in Glenn's defense, (not that he needs it, of course), I don't recall that he was bashing Ron Paul himself, aside from his campaign's unwillingness to respond to interview requests for the longest time; but he had some great fun with the supporters who called in to rant about "Ron Paul is never on, you establishment hack!!!" His main beef with Paul was that Glenn didn't think a strictly-Constitutional isolationist policy was feasible at this point; other than that, he praised him consistently as sounding the most like the Founding Fathers. :-)
Ron Paul would have been crushed by Obama, even more than McCain was. Ron Paul is way out of the mainstream.
ReplyDeleteObama won for several very basic reasons
1. The economy sucks, which is the fault of both parties (Fannie and Fred, repeal of Glass Steagal, CRA, etc.) and excessive borrowers in general (you don't see politicians blaming the people, but it's true) but Republicans took the blame.
2. Obama is younger, thinner and better looking than McCain. Women love him, just like they did Clinton.
Kannie,
ReplyDeleteYou'd be surprised what some people don't really know about themselves. I'm not saying you're a racist. I don't know you and I'm willing to take your word on that but I think any and everyone has a problem when they just want to group everybody into one category. You said liberals want to yield to world opinion. All liberals?
Grouping all into one little box has lead to and can lead to the majority group dominating the other and some times without realizing it.
I just think its time that we stop this liberal and conservative crap and start saying Americans. We have a long hard road ahead and we can only get there together not appart.
United We Stand
Divided We Fall
I loved this:
ReplyDeletethe values and the principles of Ronald Reagan's Republican party were not rejected because there was no candidate representing them
and also this:
Socialism lite is a weak attempt at uniqueness
And anonymous,
Ron Paul would have been crushed by Obama
I'm not so sure. Given that most Republicans felt they had to vote against Obama at any cost, along with the 2 parties being the "only" options to choose from, as long as Obama was the "greater evil"....
"I wonder, then, why Rush Limbaugh belittled the only real Republican in the bunch, Ron Paul?"
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that sooo many people belittled Ron Paul. And I think it's partially due to stage presence.
I read Ron Paul's book and got really excited to watch a TV interview with him. And he did NOT come across as brilliant or well read as he actually is.
Let's face it; Americans get a lot of their information from TV. And if a guy goes on TV and looks kind of crazy (and the media helps him look that way), voters won't give him a chance. We need a voting population that reads; and while many do read, it's not enough.
Frankly, we need someone with Ron Paul's brain and Obama's charisma and physical presence. Too bad we can never get what we really want during election season.
Kannie-
ReplyDeleteYou're right about Glenn Beck. But here's what I don't understand about him (and I DO like to listen to him occasionally). How is changing our foreign policy to be ideal ANY LESS feasible than changing our economic policy to be ideal? Is getting rid of the fed easier than bringing our troops home from 130 countries? I would think the former might be harder to change.
"I just think its time that we stop this liberal and conservative crap and start saying Americans. We have a long hard road ahead and we can only get there together not appart."
ReplyDeleteThis is what people say when their side wins. What the other side hears is, "You guys lost, so shut up and get behind our policies." In other words, it doesn't work when either side says this.
Having said that, I've got to say that while I am generally a libertarian leaning conservative, my views simply don't fit well in any of the little boxes we have created for politically classification.
The problem with libertarian minded people like Ron Paul is the non-acceptance differential. Most people can enthusiastically buy about 40-50% of what libertarians say. They can go along with another 20-30%. But the vehemently oppose the rest. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "I really like most of what that guy said, but he was a total nutcake on [fill in issue(s)]."
Like it or not, Americans have elected center-right or center-left presidents for a long time now (or at least guys that appear to be such). We simply do not elect presidents from outside of the mainstream. I have accepted the fact that my views are outside of the mainstream, so I'm not likely to see a president I actually like in my lifetime.
its just me -
ReplyDeleteDid I say I "want to just group everyone into one category?" I missed that...
The comment about being called "racist" was because people who don't agree with Obama's policies (and therefore didn't vote for him) are being called racist, both before the election, and now. And that is wrong. Additionally, it's ridiculous.
Using the generic term "liberal" (in today's "liberal = progressive" terms) was simply a concise way to refer to a group of individuals - Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Sandra Day O'Connor,
etc. - who tend to work together to, IMO, undermine the Constitution by being extra-liberal with their interpretations of it ["extra-liberal" in this case meaning "taking more liberties unto *government* (which, interestingly, happens to be themselves...) than are specifically provided therein" - like "generous," but in the wrong ways].
The leaders are who I'm talking about - those who back each other up in their separate branches of government. And they do put international opinion above the actual text of the Constitution - both in court cases and in legislation.
Everyday individuals, at least the ones I've met (since I wouldn't want to group them all together ;-), are much more varied in their opinions (mostly because they're individuals - they're not banding together for the sake of power).
You're right that I should've been more specific about who, exactly, I was referring to. And granted, not every "liberal" - even in government - agrees on everything (one notable exception: Joe Lieberman. But there's a reason for the "notable" in that phrase ;-)
... and while we do all need to work together to have happy things happen in our country (and our government), it'd sure be nice if we stuck to the Constitution, because that's what makes us Americans.
Carissa - yep, I realize the inconsistency on evaluating foreign policy "feasibility" vs. economic "feasability." Honestly, I'm still struggling with that, too - ever since that GWOT discussion on Connor's site. I'm coming around, I think, but it's taking some time... :-)
ReplyDeleteI think it was pretty clear McCain was going to be a disaster. Even if he one he would have brought the Republican party even further to the left. The days of the RINOs is over. There despicable attacks on Sarah Palin is just part of thier death throws. RINOs should now know they have been rejected by conservatives. The only thing they can do now is be honest with themselves and become Democrats.
ReplyDeleteKannie,
ReplyDeleteI hope that it has galvanized a lot of people, but it seems like 4 years is just long enough for a lot of people to forget.
Anon,
I agree with Carissa. Ron Paul would have kicked Obama's trash, because Ron Paul has a better understanding of foreign policy than Obama, and he didn't vote for the silly bailout, which Obama did.
Kathy,
You may have come across a point why Ron Paul didn't make as big of splash in the media--because he's not charismatic like Obama. But it doesn't take long for someone to listen to Paul to find out that he knows what he's talking about. I only wish I knew a tenth of what he does.
It's Just Me,
I agree that there are some liberals who don't seek one world government, just like there are some conservatives who do. Just look at how the first $700 billion bailout vote shook out in the house. It was more of an Establishment vs. America type of vote.
Reach,
I hope that things are dire enough that people will begin to look at Ron Paul's point of view not as Libertarian, but rather as the only practical one. Because if things aren't that critical, they will be.
Ken,
"The ink had barely dried" on McCain's concession speech before his staffers were throwing darts at Palin. It goes to show that he never really wanted her as a VP running mate, but rather that he felt she was the only way he could possibly win.