I still think that the open borders, spend thrift policy of the Bush was the key to losses.

This was no ordinary election though.

Great. Ask Whitman how well Republicans have done here in NJ since she greased the skids for us?

BBL

Here we go.

This will get the blood pumping.

Guess I better go read the article first :)

Losers! McCain tried their strategy, and it didn't exactly win for him!.

So if Obama-Pelosi forces Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions through all 9 months, should the Republican party say "sorry Catholics, you shouldn't be in the health care business to begin with".

It's one thing to take an extreme position (constitutional amendment to ban almost all abortions). But another to through your social conservatives under the bus all together.

re: #1 pat

I still think that the open borders, spend thrift policy of the Bush was the key to losses.

A country is defined by its culture and its borders. Close the damn borders!

OT, but there's been a threat (caller to 911 apparently said "terrorist threat", overheard on the boat? Not sure) to a ferry in Washington state...the ferry was returned to the Bremerton dock. Story still sketchy.

Socons will back Jindal, get their asses whipped again and learn nothing. Makes no difference to me.

Whoever has the center wins.
In 2004 many people thought Kerry was too left. That's why Bush won.

In 2008 people didn't believe that Obama was too left.
And frankly nobody really knew where McCain was

Ed Morrissey has a rebuttal here.

I'll add that moderates broke for Obama when that genius Paulson started running around in September with his hair on fire, and the President permitted himself to be swept up in the hysteria. That central point has nothing to do with what these people are arguing.

Got an idea. Let's be conservatives. Hmmm...

re: #11 KSK

Whoever has the center wins.
In 2004 many people thought Kerry was too left. That's why Bush won.

In 2008 people didn't believe care that Obama was too left.
And frankly nobody really knew where McCain was

Being moderate will help the party. We just have to let people know.

:Lawyers guns and money:

:The shit has hit the fan, huh!:

Uhmmm.

We lost the election because our candidate was a doddering old fart with no coherent ideology who kept his balls in a mason jar beneath the sink, because our opponent was a clinically suave sociopath, and because the media did nothing to hold his feet to the fire for his numerous broken promises and questionable associations. And, oh yeah, something about a last-minute economic crisis? And we're supposed to believe people voted out the GOP because they disapprove of their treatment of gays, even as they vote in, sometimes by massive margins, gay marriage bans?

Jesus.

"Nor did the Republican ticket lose because “values voters” stayed home.
... Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago — 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates."

So, does this mean the moderates stayed home or did they vote for Obama?

re: #7 Dave the.....

As privately fundud hospitals, I don't see that happening.
To the larger point, you don't win future elections by appelaing to LESS people. That stated, we have to devise a 'fine line" plan that appeals not only to the "hard' base, but widens the net

re: #9 capitalist piglet

OT, but there's been a threat (caller to 911 apparently said "terrorist threat", overheard on the boat? Not sure) to a ferry in Washington state...the ferry was returned to the Bremerton dock. Story still sketchy.

For anyone who cares, it was apparently overheard by someone listening to two people talk in a convenience store - the story isn't regarded as credible. Nothing to see here, I guess. Nothing but a massive drive-time ferry-jam, at least.

re: #9 capitalist pigletWasn't there an investigation of some (middle eastertern) chaps taking pics of a Ferry and it 's hardware there a year or two ago?

I am so sick and tired of hearing stuff like this. After 8 years of a President with abysmal ratings ( deserved or not, they are low ), after an economic collapse that was hyped up by the MSM, after the apparent victory in Iraq was forgotten by everyone, with a weak candidate who had no strategy (except change? were did I hear that before? ), and after no one cared about anything Obama ever did or mostly didn't do-----Now they want me to believe we lost because of issues that I don't even remember being discussed? PLEASE!

I am not in favor of a forced, draconian, social agenda. I just do not feel it impacted the minds of any voters. The Palin haters are using her as an excuse and as a brush to paint all Republicans as idiots. Because abortion, flag burning, and gay marriage are so nuanced.

re: #7 Dave the.....

So if Obama-Pelosi forces Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions through all 9 months, should the Republican party say "sorry Catholics, you shouldn't be in the health care business to begin with".

It's one thing to take an extreme position (constitutional amendment to ban almost all abortions). But another to through your social conservatives under the bus all together.

If Obama's defense of Infanticide did not sway voters, unrestricted abortions won't do it.

I've met far too many middle-of-the-road voters who have told me that they switched from McCain to Obama after he picked Palin to satisfy the fundies. They were more scared of her "religious extremism" than they were of Obama's political extremism. Note that I'm keenly aware that Palin was only painted as a religious nut by the media; I'm not claiming she is one. But it's too easy to make that label stick to a party who's platform still demands jailtime for women who have abortions.

The Republicans had a chance, a moment, to seize the day from the hard left and claim the middle as their own. They already had McCain. Had he gone with his gut and chosen Lieberman it would have changed the party forever. Could it have beaten the Obama juggernaut? Perhaps not, but possibly. The vote in many states was very close. But what would have happened regardless is that we'd have been on our way to being the nation's majority party, embracing the middle that the Dems continue to marginalize.

Instead, conventional "wisdom" among the GOP is that they weren't hard-right enough. These are the old men that will drive the party into the history books. Get ready for a country where the Dems will be the right wing with the Greens on the left.

re: #19 Daisy

The tanking financial services sector was Paulson's September surprise for McCain. McCain "suspended" his campaign, only to be blindsided in DC.

re: #26 Lizard by the Bay

Instead, conventional "wisdom" among the GOP is that they weren't hard-right enough. These are the old men that will drive the party into the history books. Get ready for a country where the Dems will be the right wing with the Greens on the left.

Cynthia McKinney will rise again!

While I do not disagree with the article, McCain lost because his campaign was horrible. His campaign didn't have any particular theme. He was like Obama lite. McCain and Dole are two of the worst candidates that I can recall from either party. Not politicians. Not men. Candidates.

If Obama wasn't so disliked it would have been a real landslide.

re: #26 Lizard by the Bay

Get ready for a country where the Dems will be the right wing with the Greens on the left.
I've always said, policy wise, if JFK were running today he'd be considered a "conservative"

re: #28 Charles

Cynthia McKinney will rise again!

***shudder***
---pours drink---
gulp.

Spending close to a billion dollars on advertising and having a better coordinated campaign will move the middle and get out the vote.
That's how the 0 won.

re: #22 reloadingisnotahobby

Wasn't there an investigation of some (middle eastertern) chaps taking pics of a Ferry and it 's hardware there a year or two ago?

There was, and the controversy was that the local media refused to assist the authorities by refusing to run a photo of the two "persons of interest".

I think there is a great deal of concern that the ferry system is vulnerable...but not enough for the local media to do anything to help prevent it. An attack on a ferry would be devastating, and I would think pretty easy.

re: #18 swisnieski

Uhmmm.

We lost the election because our candidate was a doddering old fart with no coherent ideology who kept his balls in a mason jar beneath the sink, because our opponent was a clinically suave sociopath, and because the media did nothing to hold his feet to the fire for his numerous broken promises and questionable associations. And, oh yeah, something about a last-minute economic crisis? And we're supposed to believe people voted out the GOP because they disapprove of their treatment of gays, even as they vote in, sometimes by massive margins, gay marriage bans?

Jesus.

Okay, those are good points. So in the next presidential election do you believe the Republicans should nominate a social conservative, or just someone who isn't an utterly unprincipled devious Senate relic?

It is good we are airing all of this now......things have to get settled and we have to pick up the pieces and rebuild. It was not the looney right that lost this election or the noodle-spined center, it was a lack of focus. We could not offer the voters anything cohesive. Obama hammered home a vague message, but delivered it with style. McCain did not really offer a clear vision to the voters and waited way to long to go after Obama. He should have hammered Obama about his past and inexperience AND offered the voters some kind of clear message about what he would do.....he did not do that, but instead tried to out pander the pandering party...that's a loser every time.

re: #27 quickjustice

The tanking financial services sector was Paulson's September surprise for McCain. McCain "suspended" his campaign, only to be blindsided in DC.

In retrospect, it looks rather silly that McCain suspended his campaign to run back to Washington. By all accounts he sat in the meetings & said next to nothing & then just signed on to the bail out package.
Had he gone there an raised hell it might have counted for something.

Oh great, the circular firing squad is back in full force.

Seems to me the answer is to be moderately conservative. Don't take a doctrinaire position on these contentious, but rather promise a political environment where these things can be discussed, and possibly acted upon on a state-by-state basis. That's exactly what's happening with the gay marriage issue.

And the GOP leadership needs to lay out some tough talk to the single-issue voters, that being, "if you let your single issue be a litmus test for choosing a candidate, you're gonna lose everything."

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Social fundamentalists?

Are we talking rightwing social fundamentalists or leftwing social fundamentalists?

Meh

Lexicographers claim to be enthusiastic about the latest addition to the language: The word 'meh.'

The term, which is an expression of boredom or disinterest, has now been included in the Collins English dictionary for its 30th anniversary.

The word became popular after appearing in a 2001 episode of The Simpsons. Homer recommends a day trip to his kids Bart and Lisa, to which they both reply 'meh' and continue watching TV.

Heh? Meh Is The Word... Officially

One of the problems the GOP has is the appearance that many of us are just mouthing the words without any real conviction.

What happened to

Liberty?

Security?

Privacy?

Private Ownership?

Government by Consent of the People?

Initiative?

Lloyd Benson (an old time Democrat) said that a LEADER does not lead by licking his finger and measuring the breeze of public opinion, he leads with his convictions. This is what the GOP has been lacking.

Everyone knows that the over riding issues this election cycle were abortion, gays and stem cell research.

Oh, wait. No, they weren't. Not even close.

re: #22 reloadingisnotahobby

Wasn't there an investigation of some (middle eastertern) chaps taking pics of a Ferry and it 's hardware there a year or two ago?

There was indeed. Got a lot of discussion right here, with links to photos of the perps, too.

OT and a BTW, what is happening under the mountain with that Large Haldron Collider thingy? Is it still there, or is the black hole quietly growing?

I maintain that this notion of the social conservatives taking over the party is a manufactured crisis that many "moderate republicans" fall for time and time again. They object to voters who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research, but by voting against the republicans for these same issues makes them guilty of the very thing they are accusing social conservatives.

re: #18 swisnieski

We lost the election because our candidate was a doddering old fart with no coherent ideology who kept his balls in a mason jar beneath the sink, because our opponent was a clinically suave sociopath, and because the media did nothing to hold his feet to the fire for his numerous broken promises and questionable associations.

Exactly right, swis! We need a candidate who knows what Conservative values acvtaully are, who lives by them, and has the ability to verbalize them to the people of this nation.

re: #44 A Kiwi Infidel

OT and a BTW, what is happening under the mountain with that Large Haldron Collider thingy? Is it still there, or is the black hole quietly growing?

The Mediterranean is draining into it as we speak, didn't you hear?

re: #42 rawmuse

Everyone knows that the over riding issues this election cycle were abortion, gays and stem cell research.

Oh, wait. No, they weren't. Not even close.

At the end of the day the economy & racial politics trumped national security.

re: #47 bosforus

The Mediterranean is draining into it as we speak, didn't you hear?

OMG, thanks for that. I will cancel plans for that Riviera holiday.

The problem is that these social issues that have "handicapped" the GOP weren't even issues in this election.

Christie Whitman. Ugh. Her incompetence and subsequent bailing as governor brought us Jim "Knees" McGreevey. The first thing she did when elected was stab the base of the party in the back and pander to the far left.

Yes, let's move in her direction. Complete irrelevance.

re: #42 rawmuse

Everyone knows that the over riding issues this election cycle were abortion, gays and stem cell research.

Oh, wait. No, they weren't. Not even close.

Exactly right.

re: #26 Lizard by the Bay

I don't even think this conservative v. moderate argument is relevant. While they were in power, neither conservatives nor moderates in the GOP delivered what they had promised to middle class Americans: smaller government, lower taxes, and integrity in their government. McCain, Shays, and a few brave, moderate souls tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and were laughed off by Dodd and Frank. No one backed them. No one put down a marker on that issue, and fought it to the death, like immigration. Like the Democrats, many in the GOP were bought off by Wall Street money.

I have no problem with Sarah Palin. She was smeared. I am concerned about social conservatives whose agenda is to get the federal government to force their religious beliefs on everyone, as opposed to being permitted to practice their own beliefs without government persecution.

It was all the democrats could have wished for when republicans started calling each other "RINO's".

I still think that a large part of the McCain loss was his pick of the airheaded Palin. He should have picked Lieberman if he wanted to be a "maverick".

re: #40 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Meh

Heh? Meh Is The Word... Officially

I think it's been around practically forever but has just begun to be used in written English with this phonetic spelling.

I thought about something similar to this recently--how many times did some newspaper, news program, etc., state things like "McCain should not make a big deal about his POW history" or "McCain should not bring up Rev. Wright", etc. Well, McCain listened to that evidently and we see where it has got him.

Ignore any story from a left leaning source that says something to the effect of, "what Republicans should do is......"

re: #44 A Kiwi Infidel

OT and a BTW, what is happening under the mountain with that Large Haldron Collider thingy? Is it still there, or is the black hole quietly growing?

See the collider cam...

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk...]

It all comes down to the Tenth Amendment. So many social issues should be state issues, not Federal issues. The federal government has taken over so many of the responsibilities and prerogatives of the states. There is too much centralized power.We all say we want strict-constructionist judges. How about strict constructionist reps, senators and presidents? I for one would like to see more fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and a lot more social libertarianism. Get the Feds out of my bedroom, my bank account, and my medicine cabinet. I can change states, if I don't like the state law, or I can politic to have my state laws changed. Federal gov't -- not so much.....

re: #54 Boxy_brown

It was all the democrats could have wished for when republicans started calling each other "RINO's".

The Democrats will soon have their bills come due from the loony left.

I am stashing popcorn away just for the occasion.

re: #54 Boxy_brown

It was all the democrats could have wished for when republicans started calling each other "RINO's".

Well when we are out in the wilderness as long as the Democrats were, maybe we will stop attacking each other also?

I still say those "moderates" did not make the moderate choice.

re: #55 Cato the Elder

I still think that a large part of the McCain loss was his pick of the airheaded Palin. He should have picked Lieberman if he wanted to be a "maverick".

And the Republican loss was the pick of McCain.

Fer cryin' out loud......are the moderates voting based on who else votes for a candidate or based on the candidate's positions on issues?!

McCain is hardly a social conservative, so how can it be said that social conservatives have taken over the party? In fact, if that were true, would Sarah Palin have made such a difference when she was announced as VP candidate? If social conservatives ran the party, they would already have been on board at the time she was nominated.

re: #55 Cato the Elder

I still think that a large part of the McCain loss was his pick of the airheaded Palin. He should have picked Lieberman if he wanted to be a "maverick".

Yeah, because Gore/Lieberman w...err..umm

re: #44 A Kiwi Infidel

OT and a BTW, what is happening under the mountain with that Large Haldron Collider thingy? Is it still there, or is the black hole quietly growing?

Downed Hadron Collider faces $21M in repairs

James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (known as CERN), said in an e-mail to Computerworld today that officials are still working on a plan of action -- and a budget -- for repairing the Large Hadron Collider. So far, he added, it appears that it will cost $21 million or more to get the collider operational again.

Late in September, CERN disclosed that a faulty electrical connection had knocked the collider offline until next spring.

There was another article yesterday that said maybe next summer.

/they should have let the Germans build it

re: #58 Walter L. Newton

See the collider cam...

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk...]

Thanks Walter, will save that linky.

Christine Todd Whitman is the politician who lied about the quality of the air that human beings were breathing after 9/11. I do not think republicans are seeking her out as a beacon of hope for the party.

At some point, "conservative" stopped meaning small government, individual rights, free markets and low taxes, and started meaning opposition to abortion in all circumstances, opposition to gay marriage, and using the government to impose Christian values. I blame big-spending RINOs, on the one hand, and the extreme religious right on the other, for turning off vast swathes of the American public from the Republican party. (I think I may be more of a classical liberal, myself, but there doesn't seem to be a party for that.)

re: #55 Cato the Elder

I still think that a large part of the McCain loss was his pick of the airheaded Palin. He should have picked Lieberman if he wanted to be a "maverick".

If Palin wasn't nominated, McCain would have lost 60% to 40%.

re: #67 A Kiwi Infidel

Thanks Walter, will save that linky.

Did you watch it for a minute?

re: #37 DesertSage

Oh great, the circular firing squad is back in full force.

There is no firing squad, Sage. Reasonable people have no reason to support theologically-based agendas.

re: #66 Killian Bundy

There was another article yesterday that said maybe next summer.

/they should have let the Germans build it

I think it was built by the lowest bidders?

Again, I have a serious question. Respectful serious question.

As far as my understanding goes with the stem cell research, the ban is isolated to federal funding for research.

I am not making an argument pro or con on this.

Does anyone wish to opine as to why this has not been able to take off through our private sector if the purported promises are attached to it?

re: #66 Killian Bundy

There was another article yesterday that said maybe next summer.

/they should have let the Germans build it

Did they buy it from IKEA? Because I saw that episode of Futurama...

re: #58 Walter L. Newton

See the collider cam...

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk...]

Ah, Walter, Walter, are you there? Hello?

First post: I agree it looks bad to have internal disagreements in the party, but it is scarier that the democrats have no disagreements.

Fine, the social conservatives should purge the moderates out of the party.

Or....

The moderate conservatives should purge the social conservatives out of the party.

Somebody do something!

Either way, the GOP won't be a majority again in my lifetime.

Or....

We can accept everyone under the same big tent!
Wow, what a concept!

If the GOP did that, it would be a majority again in two years.

But no, purging seems to be the order of the day.

Until you guys figure that one out, I'll still be hanging out with the Libertarians.

re: #76 A Kiwi Infidel

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk...]

Ah, Walter, Walter, are you there? Hello?

LOL

Yeah, no firing squad. None of the pointed fingers are loaded.

Well, I could comment on topic.

/but I'd just be repeating what's already been succinctly well said so far in this thread

re: #74 formercorpsman

Again, I have a serious question. Respectful serious question.

As far as my understanding goes with the stem cell research, the ban is isolated to federal funding for research.

Federal funding for stem cell research FROM NEW EMBRYONIC CELL LINES. Research with existing cell lines was not cut off.

re: #74 formercorpsman

Again, I have a serious question. Respectful serious question.

As far as my understanding goes with the stem cell research, the ban is isolated to federal funding for research.

I am not making an argument pro or con on this.

Does anyone wish to opine as to why this has not been able to take off through our private sector if the purported promises are attached to it?

I've theorized that if there was anything concrete behind the hype of embryonic stem cell research, Big Pharma would be throwing money at it.....and they're not.

re: #53 quickjustice

I don't even think this conservative v. moderate argument is relevant. While they were in power, neither conservatives nor moderates in the GOP delivered what they had promised to middle class Americans: smaller government, lower taxes, and integrity in their government. McCain, Shays, and a few brave, moderate souls tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and were laughed off by Dodd and Frank. No one backed them. No one put down a marker on that issue, and fought it to the death, like immigration. Like the Democrats, many in the GOP were bought off by Wall Street money.

I have no problem with Sarah Palin. She was smeared. I am concerned about social conservatives whose agenda is to get the federal government to force their religious beliefs on everyone, as opposed to being permitted to practice their own beliefs without government persecution.

When was anybody for that? Reagan was the last great conservative that we had and he never did such a thing. I think that is the same canard the libs use to scare people.

"Moderates" do not vote for Obama.
I call those voters "misguided idiots".
I don't waste my time figuring out how to satisfy them or win them over.

re: #55 Cato the Elder

I still think that a large part of the McCain loss was his pick of the airheaded Palin. He should have picked Lieberman if he wanted to be a "maverick".

And just why do you say she is an airhead? I have heard this accusation, but am not sure where it comes from, besides SNL.

re: #46 Wishing

We lost the election because our candidate was a doddering old fart with no coherent ideology who kept his balls in a mason jar beneath the sink, because our opponent was a clinically suave sociopath, and because the media did nothing to hold his feet to the fire for his numerous broken promises and questionable associations.

Exactly right, swis! We need a candidate who knows what Conservative values acvtaully are, who lives by them, and has the ability to verbalize them to the people of this nation.

And not correct his voter base every time they said anything 'negative' about Obama. I think the best thing McCain did was bring Palin on board. Obama's whacked religious beliefs drive him - but, of course, the media kept their focus off that and on Palin's belief system. And McCain stood ineffectually by doing more harm than good.

re: #38 Alberta Oil Peon

AOP,

The same with abortion. Roe v Wade is crap, the right it is based on was created out of thin air by the SC. THAT is why is should be overturned. THEN the states should be allowed to decide.

A position by the way, that the "fundamentalist" Palin supports.

re: #34 Salem

Okay, those are good points. So in the next presidential election do you believe the Republicans should nominate a social conservative, or just someone who isn't an utterly unprincipled devious Senate relic?

Well, preferably both.

Conservatives need to understand that we are intrinsically at a disadvantage in elections because our opponents are constitutionally incapable of behaving in a manner that is civil and principled (see the above article - QED!). So they need to make a point of selecting someone who is actually capable both conservative and capable of communicating conservative ideas effectively. That's all. McCain was neither a conservative nor a particularly effective communicator, and his ridiculous "I won't make an issue of my opponent's flaws" high-horsery was patently ineffective.

As for them nominating a "social conservative," well, there is no center-right electoral coalition that will ever be able to exclude social conservatives. Why does nominating a social conservative have to be incompatible with nominating a fiscal conservative and a defense hawk, anyway?

re: #82 Moe Katz

Fair enough. Like I said, to extent of my knowledge about it.

Would this preclude the private sector from pursuing the same type of research otherwise banned from federal funding?

re: #79 Walter L. Newton

[Link: www.cyriak.co.uk...]

LOL

Yes, I watched it. I admit I was duped. But only for as long as it took my front yard to disappear. I now blog to you from parallel universe #134A3X cb1

re: #83 eschew_obfuscation

I've theorized that if there was anything concrete behind the hype of embryonic stem cell research, Big Pharma would be throwing money at it.....and they're not.

No. But the payoff is too far off. The private sector just funds what will turn over a fast buck. That's why you need a mixture of public and private funding in health research.

re: #72 Salem

There is no firing squad, Sage. Reasonable people have no reason to support theologically-based agendas.

No, but reasonable people should should accept others with different opinions then there own...under the same big tent...if they want to be a majority party again.

I'd back a social conservative who was right on the economy and on liberty and small government issues. I'd want to know that they did not advocate imposing their personal values by use of federal government coercion on others.

Another one of these? I'm starting think I should take the hint, Charles.

Not going to leave the party, but I'll leave the blog, if you'd like.

Let's not blame the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 entirely on the 'social conservatives' when
1) the GOP controlled house and senate lost track of their conservative principles and fiscal conservatism.
2) many Obama supporters were expressing their anger and displeasure towards President Bush
3) Many of my conservative colleagues who supported President Bush in 2004 went for Obama this time because they ' wanted someone who looked like us' ( a direct quote), they 'wanted our sons and daughters to see that anything is possible' (direct quote).
4) Reagan won with a coalition of conservatives and Reagan democrats because he stood firm on his principles, and he connected with the average person. Reagan didn't give in on social issues-- why should we give in on social issues now?
5) In the county where I live, GOP candidates won ALL local offices by wide margins, while Obama carried the county by 37K votes. That says voters who supported local GOP candidates were also voting for Obama; they were not voting solely along party lines.
6) The state votes on marriage prove that social conservatism still exists, even in an electorate that voted for Change in the White House.

On a personal note, I was a liberal Democrat from 1979 to 1995, I'm now a conservative republican. Democrats and liberals use only their heart and how they feel about an issue ( I can speak from experience on that!).. while republicans - and conservatives use their heads and think through issues. Successful GOP candidates appeal to those who use their heads, and those who use their hearts. Let's not sacrifice 'social conservatives' as a result of 1 lost election.

re: #90 formercorpsman

Fair enough. Like I said, to extent of my knowledge about it.

Would this preclude the private sector from pursuing the same type of research otherwise banned from federal funding?

See my #82. No quick payoff. Corporate boards operate in a limited time frame.

Must go. I have zeborgs knocking at the door..........

I'm not a social conservative, but this sort of drivel is getting irritating.

The Dems have the Environmental Extremists and the 'in-your-face' gay rights extremists - not to mention the Jessie Jackson & Al Sharpton fringe elements demanding reparations. Are we to think that all of those groups and policies are now 'mainstream' because the Dems won the election?

The social conservatives are comfortable as republicans and I'm comfortable with them in the tent.

re: #68 pie22

The Whitman "brand" is somewhat tainted in NJ, as I understand it.

re: #55 Cato the Elder

I still think that a large part of the McCain loss was his pick of the airheaded Palin. He should have picked Lieberman if he wanted to be a "maverick".

Why? Palin is aligned w/Lieberman on foreign policy (and every bit his equal intellectually). Plus she had that extra special something: She's a Republican.

I'm more worried about the dearth of FISCONS than the reports of a sudden abundance of SOCONS.

/it's like effing Pig Latin anymore

re: #94 quickjustice

I'd back a social conservative who was right on the economy and on liberty and small government issues. I'd want to know that they did not advocate imposing their personal values by use of federal government coercion on others.

Did you like Romney?

re: #83 eschew_obfuscation

Again, I am not making a pro or con argument with this topic.

It would seem to me, if I understand the argument correctly, this is really a non-issue as it relates to the current divide.

One aspect of fiscal conservatism is to have limits of goverment spending. Another aspect is top allow the private sector to flourish financially.

Does my analogy make sense?

re: #86 Wishing

And just why do you say she is an airhead? I have heard this accusation, but am not sure where it comes from, besides SNL.

She isn't an airhead - she was just portrayed that way by the press and the left. She's governor of a huge state with vast resources. She also has an 80% approval rating by the people of that state. She has exactly the same qualifications as Bush and Clinton to be president herself. The smear campaign against her was unprecedented and appalling.

The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research.

I don't really give a shit about abortion, gay marriage, or stem cell research and I still voted for McCain. I abhor the fact that the aforementioned "issues" are even brought up in a Presidential campaign. To think that they're "game changers" when we're essentially fighting for the preservation of western civilization makes my head hurt. But that's just my own damn opinion.

As privately fundud hospitals, I don't see that happening.

One frustrating thing is when I say the words that leading Democrats say, and people don't believe me. Democrats have said they want to force all hospitals to perform elective abortions through all nine months. They said they will do it both through law (Freedom of choice act), and through judical acts (see who Obama puts on Fed'l courts).

Christy is the enlightened Republican Governor who made New Jersey a Blue State. She apparently thinks conservatives have short memories.

re: #87 Daisy

Agree Daisy!

re: #95 nikis-knight

Another one of these? I'm starting think I should take the hint, Charles. Not going to leave the party, but I'll leave the blog, if you'd like.

Why, because Charles has a point of view that you don't agree with? Has anyone asked you to leave?

If you read what is being said, the approach to this is to have a more INCLUSIVE BIG TENT. Evidently you don't want to do that.

ok, I changed my mind, you are part of the problem. Leave.

re: #74 formercorpsman

Its because fetal stem cell research has not been all that productive. They are making much more progress with cells from I believe, adult skin cells.

If Obama's defense of Infanticide did not sway voters, unrestricted abortions won't do it.

Most Obama voters do not know about that. At least not the ones that could be persuaded to vote Republican on occasion.

re: #53 quickjustice

I agree with everything you just said. To me, "conservative values" means small government, low taxes, fair tax burden distribution (flat is good), immigration policy that put the nation's interests before the immigrants, judicial appointments which honor the constitution and abhor legislating from the bench, and a strong defense and a willingness to use it tempered with the wisdom of knowing when not to.

But to too many, "conservative values" means intelligent design, banning abortion, prayer in school, banning stem cell research, spying on/censoring the internet, etc...

Bush was too much of the latter and not nearly enough of the former. It's what helped drive his (and the party's) approval ratings into the toilet, and paved the way for easy Dem victories. Those who only prioritize the second set of "conservative values" I've listed without any real interest in list A (Mike Huckabee, etc.) are the Republicans who need to be run out of the party on a rail. They can take their voters with them. There's more than enough votes in the anti-Socialist center to make up for it.

re: #105 vapig

She isn't an airhead - she was just portrayed that way by the press and the left. She's governor of a huge state with vast resources. She also has an 80% approval rating by the people of that state. She has exactly the same qualifications as Bush and Clinton to be president herself. The smear campaign against her was unprecedented and appalling.

You dont have to convince ME. lol

re: #106 obscured by clouds

I don't really give a shit about abortion, gay marriage, or stem cell research and I still voted for McCain. I abhor the fact that the aforementioned "issues" are even brought up in a Presidential campaign. To think that they're "game changers" when we're essentially fighting for the preservation of western civilization makes my head hurt. But that's just my own damn opinion.

All I remember is "Hopechange" on one side and "My opponent's a nice guy" on the other.

None of this other stuff seemed to have been a big deal. But maybe you folks in "battleground states" got a different exposure than I did.

Let's face it, the Republicans have screwed themselves. We had the Congress, the Presidency and the SCOTUS. And, what did we do we do with that? We acted like Democrats and spent like there is no tomorrow. We lost our way and spent too much time at the trough when we should have been doing the opposite.

That, and the Iraq War. Maybe it was right to go in, maybe it was wrong. Too many mistakes were made at the start. The fact that it has turned around now is moot. The majority of the country thinks it was a mistake and the Republicans made the decision to go in. We had the left screaming like little brats hoping and praying we lost the entire time, and the media was all gung ho at first, but they turned on Bush once it became clear it would drag on.

And, finally, we had President Elect Obama. He is a once in a lifetime mixture of intelligence, communication skills, appearance and charisma. McCain was no match for all of that especially when the MSM was backing Obama like it has no other Presidential candidate in modern history.

The "good" news is, Obama has set himself up for a fall. The world is a mess, our economy is in shambles, and he is going to approach things from the wrong way with bad ideas. It is "good" only in the sense it will show as bad as the Republicans have handled things lately, they are still better than the Libs (at least I hope)

re: #83 eschew_obfuscation

I've theorized that if there was anything concrete behind the hype of embryonic stem cell research, Big Pharma would be throwing money at it.....and they're not.

Too true. Adult stem cells and even stem cells from umbilical cords do wonders. The embryonic research has produced either nothing or disasters. Kinda of like a failsafe for taking a life to extend another.

re: #82 Moe Katz

Federal funding for stem cell research FROM NEW EMBRYONIC CELL LINES. Research with existing cell lines was not cut off.

You know, I'm a pretty hard-core pro-science guy, but I really don't have a problem with a government declining to fund to fund a particular program because of ethical concerns.

The real problem, which is being overlooked here, is the assumption being made that government is, or perhaps should be the sole source of research funding. This is the paradigm that needs to be overturned. If fetal stem-cell research is so doggone promising, why does it need government funding at all? Shouldn't Big Pharma be dumping a piss-pot full of cash into it?

A truly conservative government should simply get out of the way, and allow scientists to seek funding from whatever private sources they can, and allow a handsome tax write-off for R&D expenditures.

I want small government, individual rights, free markets and low taxes. I want government to get out of my bedroom, my pocketbook, my sex life and my work life as much as possible.

If the Republican Party can provide candidates that "walk the walk and talk the talk" (and in that order) I'll work hard and vote for them. Otherwise "Meh!"

From a guy who's been covering the Detroit automobile business beat for many years, and has in fact been lambasted by the Big 3 at times for being too harsh a critic of them, and too easy on their foreign-owned rivals.
-------------------------------------------
November 17, 2008
6 myths about the Detroit 3
BY MARK PHELAN
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

The debate over aid to the Detroit-based automakers is awash with half-truths and misrepresentations that are endlessly repeated by everyone from members of Congress to journalists. Here are six myths about the companies and their vehicles, and the reality in each case.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.

Reality
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.

Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.

Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.

Reality
The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality
All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Reality
None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.

Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

Reality
The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.

Reality
The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009.

I am in a county that went blue and could have easily gone red if Palin wasn't in the picture. The number of undecided voters who went to Obama because Palin entered the picture is massive.

Also, the site looks pretty Charles, I haven't been around in a while, but today I logged on faster than ever before. Good work.

What the Republicans need is a candidate who can articulate conservative ideas clearly and in an inspiring way.

After 8 years of Bush's bumblings, even I was getting BDS.

re: #74 formercorpsman

Again, I have a serious question. Respectful serious question.

As far as my understanding goes with the stem cell research, the ban is isolated to federal funding for research.

I am not making an argument pro or con on this.

Does anyone wish to opine as to why this has not been able to take off through our private sector if the purported promises are attached to it?

Because embryonic stem cell research has not shown much promise, unlike adult stem cells, which are already leading to new treatments in areas such as bone marrow transplants to treat leukemia. You are quite right; if embryonic stem cell research was so promising, pharmaceutical companies would be climbing all over each other trying to throw money at it. Proponents conflate both types of stem cell research in order to confuse the issue. I believe their goal is not to advance science, but to preserve abortion on demand.

It really chaps my hide when I hear either faction of the GOP talking about purging the other faction!

Is that how the Democrats won a majority?

NO!

They have radical Leftists who run the party, yet they accepted the Blue Dogs under their tent to make it a majority.

That's how it's done. Accepting MORE people...not purging the ones you have!

re: #119 Conservative in Liberal Hands

I want small government, individual rights, free markets and low taxes. I want government to get out of my bedroom, my pocketbook, my sex life and my work life as much as possible.

If the Republican Party can provide candidates that "walk the walk and talk the talk" (and in that order) I'll work hard and vote for them. Otherwise "Meh!"

EXACTLY! Bravo!

re: #97 Moe Katz

I still have a hard time accepting, with all of the different advocacy groups that exist, the ability to raise funds in the private sector, this should be an issue.

For contrast, seriously, if we are going to ride a high horse about this, look how much was raised to just elect our next President.

To me, it is antithetical to the fiscal Conservatives position then to be in favor of the government shouldering the risk of development, and allowing the private sector to the reap the reward.

In an alternate universe, not much different than the current bailouts.

re: #118 Alberta Oil Peon

Boy oh boy do I agree w/you!

re: #115 OldLineTexan

All I remember is "Hopechange" on one side and "My opponent's a nice guy" on the other.

None of this other stuff seemed to have been a big deal. But maybe you folks in "battleground states" got a different exposure than I did.

That's what I got out of it, McCain kinda saying that BHO was not really a bad choice. At one rally, he damn near endorsed Obama.

Another one of these? I'm starting think I should take the hint, Charles.

Not going to leave the party, but I'll leave the blog, if you'd like.

That's the way I'm starting to feel. I always knew that the group here really is very diverse. Mostly agreed on foreign policy (at least within certain parameters), but disagreed on domestic issues, especially non-financial ones (see abortion, gay rights, Mel Gibson). Usually those disagreements came up within a thread. But not the basis of so many threads. I'm actually pretty moderate, but more sympathize with social conservative causes (within certain parameters).

re: #121 dmjboose

I am in a county that went blue and could have easily gone red if Palin wasn't in the picture. The number of undecided voters who went to Obama because Palin entered the picture is massive.

The number of undecided voters who went to McCain because Palin entered the picture is also massive. Probably more massive (tho I don't have a link handy right now).

re: #121 dmjboose

I am in a county that went blue and could have easily gone red if Palin wasn't in the picture. The number of undecided voters who went to Obama because Palin entered the picture is massive.

Also, the site looks pretty Charles, I haven't been around in a while, but today I logged on faster than ever before. Good work.

Where did u get this data?

re: #125 freedombilly

Thank you!

Jindal could cut all religious-based policy out of his platform and the media would still have his past positions to hang around his neck. He's likely rendered himself toxic before his campaign has even begun.

I wish Rush would stop talking up this guy.

re: #120 garycooper

Your post just shows why the American car makers deserve no bailout. If their cars are so damn good that they're outselling Toyotas and Hondas worldwide, then why do then need to take a bite out of my paycheck to stay in business?

And if the government does decide to use our money to fund a for-profit enterprise, will every taxpayer who buys a new GM or Ford that year be able to take a tax deduction for it? Because that might actually make it start to approach fair as far as this taxpayer/consumer is concerned.

The Republican party needs an animitronic candidate capable of spurting out confusing ideas based on algorithms designed to scan Wikipedia articles and "Yahoo Answers".

re: #118 Alberta Oil Peon

A truly conservative government should simply get out of the way, and allow scientists to seek funding from whatever private sources they can, and allow a handsome tax write-off for R&D expenditures.

The problem with that model is that the gre-e-edy capitalist scallywags won't fund basic research because the shareholders are looking for a payoff in a few quarters. Research leading to immediate applications is only a fraction of the scientific process, and it depends on the 'useless' basic stuff.

re: #121 dmjboose

Friends,

Obama portrayed a brighter economic future than Mcain.

McCain sucked when talking about the economy. His policies were better than Obama's but he had absolutely no conviction. Obama had shitty policies, but he spoke them well.

Stop blaming Palin or Social conservatives. It's all about the economy.

re: #128 opnion

That's what I got out of it, McCain kinda saying that BHO was not really a bad choice. At one rally, he damn near endorsed Obama.

That's what I heard too. For me, finally, McCain came off as a career politician who was very reluctant to lose his job and was willing to do anything to keep it. IMO, he was a poor choice for candidate.

re: #121 dmjboose

I am in a county that went blue and could have easily gone red if Palin wasn't in the picture. The number of undecided voters who went to Obama because Palin entered the picture is massive.

Also, the site looks pretty Charles, I haven't been around in a while, but today I logged on faster than ever before. Good work.

It couldn't possibly because of the massive smear campaign the press and left did on her?

The people I know voted McCain BECAUSE of Palin. They weren't even excited about voting before that. Most planned on staying home because they couldn't stomach him. It was because of her they even went to vote.

re: #111 bebe's boobs destroy

I realize that has been an argument as of late, but not really the object of my post.

I am trying to parse the concept of limited government expenditure, by voting for increasing government expenditures.

re: #100 quickjustice

The Whitman "brand" is somewhat tainted in NJ, as I understand it.

Ain't nothing to taint. She buried it!

re: #123 doppelganglander

Because embryonic stem cell research has not shown much promise, unlike adult stem cells, which are already leading to new treatments in areas such as bone marrow transplants to treat leukemia. You are quite right; if embryonic stem cell research was so promising, pharmaceutical companies would be climbing all over each other trying to throw money at it. Proponents conflate both types of stem cell research in order to confuse the issue. I believe their goal is not to advance science, but to preserve abortion on demand.

Talking points.

re: #19 Daisy

"Nor did the Republican ticket lose because “values voters” stayed home.
... Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago — 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates."

So, does this mean the moderates stayed home or did they vote for Obama?

It means self professed conservatives voted for Obama. I've pointed to this Big Lizards analysis several times during this debate:
Let's hop aboard my Syllogismobile and go for a ride...

34% of voters called themselves "conservatives."

Of that 34%, 20% voted for Barack H. Obama; that means 6.8% of the electorate both called themselves conservatives and also voted for Obama. (Would that include Christopher Buckley and his ilk?)

Contrariwise, only 10% of self-dubbed liberals voted for John S. McCain. Conservatives defected at twice the rate of liberals.

Suppose, just for a giggle, conservatives had only voted for Obama at the same percentage that liberals voted for McCain... in other words, that conservatives were no more likely to defect than liberals. In that case, half of the conservative defectors would have remained loyal, and 3.4% of votes would shift from Obama to McCain.

According to the most recent quasi-official unofficial tally, the popular tallies for the two nominees were 52.6% for Obama and 46.1% for McCain.

Switching 3.4% from left to right yields 49.2% for Obama and 49.5% for McCain. (Note McCain number higher than Obama number.)

Conclusion: Had conservatives defected at the same rate as liberals, instead of twice the rate, then John McCain would have won this election.

Off to tend dinner - have a great time Lizards! No fighting :)

re: #95 nikis-knight

Another one of these? I'm starting think I should take the hint, Charles.

Not going to leave the party, but I'll leave the blog, if you'd like.

re: #129 Dave the.....

Hang in there Lizards. After eight years of increasingly misguided policies, we need to vent and get our S**t together (pardon for the 60's language).

Repeat after me:
Economy
Ethics & corruption
National security
End of story.

re: #132 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Thank you!

Thank you! I would be that articulate if I were that articulate:)

I love how the same people who are griping about social conservatives, who really have no power in the grand scheme of things, have no problem voting for a party willing to legislate every single moment of your life from cradle to birth.

Is the electorate really this stupid?

re: #133 Salem

Jindal could cut all religious-based policy out of his platform and the media would still have his past positions to hang around his neck. He's likely rendered himself toxic before his campaign has even begun.

I wish Rush would stop talking up this guy.

That's it, purge Jindal.

Never mind that he's one of the most articulate, intelligent, enthusiastic, energetic members the GOP has.

He's a DAMN CHRISTIAN!

Purge him!

/Brilliant!

Yes, the Democrats win by getting the votes of both the radical leftists (see Ayres, Moore, Hollywood, San Francisco), and the redneck homophobic racist union guys (the ones I used to drink beer with at the labor temple). If the Republicans decide that a big tent is not in their best interest, then you can concede ever election to the San Francisco-union boy alliance.

re: #148 freedombilly

Check my history here... I'm far more prone to place my feet (both of them) in my mouth as any and maybe even more so!

re: #143 Lynn B.

Talking points.

Wrong. It's science.

Vice president, former AG, state senator indicted

[Link: www.chron.com...]

Yeah, and it's our party that is crazy?

Speaking as someone who believes that there can be such a thing as "morally wholesome homosexuality" that's distinct from immoral, unhealthy expressions of homosexuality, and that this concept ought to be integrated into traditional Judeo-Christian morality, I was personally encouraged by Palin's nomination.

Because I saw Palin as representing a Christian conservatism tempered by Alaskan libertarianism, and thus able to be part of the bridge bringing various elements of the Right together on "social issues."

re: #149 Wendya

I love how the same people who are griping about social conservatives, who really have no power in the grand scheme of things, have no problem voting for a party willing to legislate every single moment of your life from cradle to birth.

Is the electorate really this stupid?

Yes.

re: #144 Thanos

Thanks Thanos .. just caught your post before dashing off to tend dinner prep. I'll give it a more thoughtful read later.

re: #153 vapig

Wrong. It's science.

No. It's not. Not even close.

re: #126 formercorpsman

To me, it is antithetical to the fiscal Conservatives position then to be in favor of the government shouldering the risk of development, and allowing the private sector to the reap the reward.

In an alternate universe, not much different than the current bailouts.

But that's how it works in any country with a mixed economy. Government funds basic research which makes possible more focused, application-oriented research that someone makes a profit from. No different from the roads being built at public expense upon which businesses build their premises. Basic research can be thought of as a kind of infrastructure, though knowledge-based rather than physical in nature.

It's freezing outside and I need to go home to make dinner. TTYL, Lizards! Stay safe and warm!

re: #55 Cato the Elder

Palin was worth four points to McCain, bringing him up from 42% to 46%. She energized the conservative base. McCain needed nine points to win. I can't think of another VP selection who could have done that for him.

And Palin's not stupid. Many liberal Democrat women here in NYC told me that Palin is genuinely charismatic. They said, "I don't agree with any of her positions, but she's absolutely enthralling." I think that's the cat the MSM didn't want out of the bag. Palin is the real deal, and she is a future threat to Democrats and leftist feminists.

re: #14 Cannadian Club Akbar

Got an idea. Let's be conservatives. Hmmm...

Does that include holding to the ideals of separation of church and state, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedoms like gay marriage and abortion?

Or did you just mean lower taxes, increase spending, keep the gays down, tolerate the injection of ID into our schools and churn out a bunch of undereducated kids that can't compete in the global market?

>The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late.
You know, in some businesses, it's better to get in early than later. Once you make a name for yourself as THE company for X, people will buy it. Same thing happens with iPods. I personally buy non-iPods. I pay less for more features, battery life, control of my music, customizability. But iPods have a great marketing team and released one of the first usable HD based DAP's. Now look at their marketshare, and good luck to any company that wants more than 1-3% of that market.

The Detroit 3 got in late? That's their fault.

>If fetal stem-cell research is so doggone promising, why does it need government funding at all? Shouldn't Big Pharma be dumping a piss-pot full of cash into it?

It doesn't have to, but it would be nice if we did. A space race for our generation, something to absolutely cement our place at the top of the list for science. It's certainly something better to put money into than hundreds of billions of dollars to bailout companies that failed on their own and now want taxpayers to pay for their idiotic investments. No one will socialize the losses my dad takes at his small business, why should the car companies and Wall Street get better treatment? Just because they fucked up harder?

If we're a free market economy, let's BE a free market economy. End the corporate welfare subsidies for the steel industry and the farmers. End the bailouts.

re: #130 Lynn B.

The number of undecided voters who went to McCain because Palin entered the picture is also massive. Probably more massive (tho I don't have a link handy right now).

McCain was pretty badly behid & jumped 4% in front with the choice of Palin.
If Paulson etal had not dropped the dime on him over the financial crisis, who knows? He probably would have lost anyway, but Palin at least gave him some hope.

Peres: Zionism started due to racism, Obama election may be end of racism (Haaretz)

Old people really should know when to get out of politics and just go home!

re: #150 DesertSage

That's it, purge Jindal.

Never mind that he's one of the most articulate, intelligent, enthusiastic, energetic members the GOP has.

He's a DAMN CHRISTIAN!

Purge him!

/Brilliant!

I dont think this is being suggested. We need the Jindals to help us rebuild the party. That doesnt make him a presidential contender! He has way too much baggage, kind of spooky stuff.
Palin now, she has been 100%vetted by the OTHER side and is still squeaky clean. She also earned the respect of a lot of *liberals* for her ability to stay on message even under a withering MSM barrage against her.

re: #158 Lynn B.

No. It's not. Not even close.

Not accurate. Ebryonic stem cells have produced nothing. Umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells have produced marvelous results. I've seen adult stem cells that were manipulated to grow into a perfect bladder with no danger of organ rejection by the recipient.

This is fact, not conjecture.

re: #124 DesertSage

It really chaps my hide when I hear either faction of the GOP talking about purging the other faction!

Is that how the Democrats won a majority?

NO!

They have radical Leftists who run the party, yet they accepted the Blue Dogs under their tent to make it a majority.

That's how it's done. Accepting MORE people...not purging the ones you have!

I don't think it's about purging. It's about getting a grip on the message, and not letting small minorities in any faction swing the party by the tail. That's getting old. While prop 8 passed, we lost seats in California due to increased turnout of Latinos and Blacks, who voted for prop 8. So while the socons got a small "w" win on a social issue, the party took a BIG L LOSS on seats.

From 154 Never giveup

McALLEN, Texas — A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County's federal detention centers.

The indictment criticizes Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Ummm, it sounds like a political statement type lawsuit. It won't go anywhere.

Perhaps abortion was a stealth issue this election. The basis of Palin hatred started in the pro-abortion camp. Her faith being portrayed as radical implies anti-abortion. And O's record stands on its own.

True women's rights include not only these decisions, but freedom from persecution in the rapidly growing Islamic caliphate. That is why I also believe the only ones fighting for true women's rights in this world are in American and Allied uniform.

/imho

Wow. Just watched a YouTube clip of the interviews that [Link: www.howobamagotelected.com...] did. These people seriously lacked information and that is scary. The interviewer should have let those they interviewed know what the correct answers were. Although that one gal said she realizes she obviously wasn't as informed as she thought but that it probably wouldn't have changed her vote. THAT'S scary.

Who says Obama didn't hypnotize the mindless masses? /sarc

There's a major difference between a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage and an amendment to ensure states do not have to recognize such marriages performed in other states. The soccons want the first. I think that kind of defines the dichotomy. As for the abortion debate, I agree that it's over and the pro-choicers won. What's left is the margins - partial birth, etc. Look, if the soccons want otherwise, fine, just learn how to spell Whig.

re: #103 bosforus

I voted for Romney in the NY primary after Rudy dropped out. Am I inconsistent in my ideology? I liked Giuliani because he proved in NYC that he knows how to get things done to stop crime and get people off the welfare rolls and to work. I think we need people who can make things happen, not just ideologues who talk a good game. Ideology is fine, but if you can't make it happen in the real world, you might as well stay in the classroom.

We need the combination of ideology plus real world action. Right now, all we have are talkers.

re: #168 Dave the.....

From 154 Never giveup

Ummm, it sounds like a political statement type lawsuit. It won't go anywhere.

I don't think so either, but i bet it is a harbinger of things to come.

re: #169 MacGregor

Perhaps abortion was a stealth issue this election. The basis of Palin hatred started in the pro-abortion camp. Her faith being portrayed as radical implies anti-abortion. And O's record stands on its own.

True women's rights include not only these decisions, but freedom from persecution in the rapidly growing Islamic caliphate. That is why I also believe the only ones fighting for true women's rights in this world are in American and Allied uniform.

/imho

True - I've never seen such an attack because she chose to keep her baby. The attacks on her and her son were atrocious.

It was in WaPo, of course it was nonsense. And it is nonsense. A war fought with many mistakes, an economic collapse, price of oil - it was an automatic change of party. Then McCain was a weak candidate, and Palin didn't much help.

I see no signs that party is "held hostage" by socons. That they find a home in the party, is not a sin. If having them in the party chases anyone else out, that's too bad, but I think a strong candidate, with strong issues - political, economic, defense - would completely cover these kinds of problems.

re: #153 vapig

Wrong. It's science.

This is science?

I believe their goal is not to advance science, but to preserve abortion on demand.

It's utter nonsense. Makes as much sense as saying that the goal of those pushing adult stem cell research is not to advance science but to push a fundamentalist religious agenda on everyone. That may be the motivation for some in each group, but I assure you that most advocates for both sides are, in fact, interested in advancing science and finding cures for some of the most devastating medical problems we face today.

Adult stem cell research has had a huge head start and is much further along, which is, of course, an advantage. That head start has also exposed its many limitations vis a vis embryonic stem cell research, which are ignored or disparaged by those pursuing an agenda rather than actually wishing to advance science.

Embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "abortion on demand." It's a false connection.

re: #165 Wishing

I dont think this is being suggested. We need the Jindals to help us rebuild the party. That doesnt make him a presidential contender! He has way too much baggage, kind of spooky stuff.
Palin now, she has been 100%vetted by the OTHER side and is still squeaky clean. She also earned the respect of a lot of *liberals* for her ability to stay on message even under a withering MSM barrage against her.

Yeah, well you've got a lot of people here who want to purge Palin also...because she's a...you know...a....

....Christian. _*shhhhh*

As for Jindal, I don't give a flying f*ck if he sacrifices chickens at a makeshift alter out in the woods every night. The man is a brilliant conservative and would chew Obama up and spit him out.

re: #172 quickjustice

I voted for Romney in the NY primary after Rudy dropped out. Am I inconsistent in my ideology? I liked Giuliani because he proved in NYC that he knows how to get things done to stop crime and get people off the welfare rolls and to work. I think we need people who can make things happen, not just ideologues who talk a good game. Ideology is fine, but if you can't make it happen in the real world, you might as well stay in the classroom.

We need the combination of ideology plus real world action. Right now, all we have are talkers.

Palin has done more than talk. So has Jindal.

We lost because McCain ran more on is Resume than on what he was going to do. There was plenty of unused ammunition, Public money hindered his efforts, not that I ever supported McCain Feingold either. With out Palin more of the base would have not been interested, I was not exactly thrilled at my choice. While some of you were sleeping at the wheel, doing the moderate dance, conservative measures were ratified. conservatives won by a big margin. Moderates like Chris Shays not so much and the Moderates ran the McCain campaign. In Indiana, McCain had a dork Luke Messer running the show here and the Messiah beat us here with the MEGA BUCKS and organization. Not much was spent by the Maverick here in these parts. He Showed up, but put his money else where. It was his Campaign not conservatives.

re: #176 Lynn B.

Embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "abortion on demand." It's a false connection.

I'm not sure it matters. It's being pushed by the same people.

Well FOX is saying ti looks like it is over for Stevens. He is down by over 2000 votes.

re: #120 garycooper

Too bad they're losing their asses despite those numbers. I say let them file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with the government guaranteeing debtor in possession financing. That means they get the government money after they file bankruptcy to ensure they can emerge from bankruptcy leaner and meaner.

Chapter 11 enables them to shed bad contracts, get rid of bad pension and employee benefit plans, downsize, and restructure into mean, lean competitive companies that can survive. They must do this to survive. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, properly employed, means a new beginning as a competitive company, not the end.

Nevergiveup....ahh, I see what you are saying. Correct. The Democrats have pledged to do everything they can to arrest their political opponents. I almost hope the next two years are non-stop attacks on Republicans. Should help out in 2010.

Remember Newt in the 1990's. What was it again? 68 indictments. 67 of them were unfounded. The one that went a little ways was that they said he taught a college class that had political undertones. Imagine that.

I realize that this is hearsay ... but many of the "far right" people that I talked with stayed out of the election entirely, or voted for Barr. If it hadn't been for Palin, more of them would have stayed out.

Also, the exit polling I saw pretty much showed that the far right wasn't so charmed by Palin that they suddenly wanted to vote for McCain.

Truth is, McCain tried to run by pissin' off his base ... and he lost because he ran a feckless campaign.

re: #177 DesertSage

Yeah, well you've got a lot of people here who want to purge Palin also...because she's a...you know...a....

....Christian. _*shhhhh*

As for Jindal, I don't give a flying f*ck if he sacrifices chickens at a makeshift alter out in the woods every night. The man is a brilliant conservative and would chew Obama up and spit him out.

I think the Jindal issue is that he actually pushed legislation..ID legislation, DesertSage. We have to look at the baggage a particular candidate may bring that will mark him as an automatic write-off.

For two terms the country elected a President who proudly proclaimed that his favorite philosopher was Jesus. Then they lose with a guy who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve and the problem is that the social cons are in charge?

That makes no sense. And as you pointed out Charles, Palin, while a social con, never used government to promote her agenda on anyone!

I have a hard time seeing that social conservatives are what sunk the Republicans this time out.

re: #163 opnion

McCain was pretty badly behid & jumped 4% in front with the choice of Palin.

Yes, but those are pre-Katie Couric numbers. Also, by choosing an unknown in an attempt to steal the spotlight (and post-convention bounce) of the One, he inadvertently made his running mate more interesting than himself (not hard to do in McCain's case, but I digress). This made all the attacks and smears on an inexperienced politician and candidate stick more to the ticket, even though they were directed at the running mate.. McCain made her an instant celebrity, and there's nothing a vicious press tears down faster than a celebrity (if it wants to, that is).

Had McCain chosen a know political variable, the coverage about the ticket could have remained on him, and then he might have had a chance to connect with voters. Palin was a gamble. McCain lost. This is not meant to reflect poorly on Palin herself. But it's the painful truth in hindsight nonetheless.

Palin hurt far more than she ever helped.

re: #120 garycooper

Great post. It reinforces my belief that the problems of the big 3 lie at the feet of the UAW.

I love this: She uses quotes when talking about her own conception: "social fundamentalists". How intellectually feeble can you be? Moreover, what could be a more empty phrase? WHAT ARE those fundamental positions? Who knows, who cares, but they are "...the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research..." Doesn't matter why they vote that why.... (It's because of religion! gross!)

She doesn't even expect her own idea to gain currency. It's already in scare quotes; it's a pre-emptive cliche. She has no idea what she's talking about. This is pandering, PURE pandering.

If you don't know why you believe what you believe, i.e. you have no principles, you shouldn't be leading ANYONE or ANYTHING.

It starts with a vision of the future. For years now social conservatives have held a litmus test in primaries, nobody could win who isn't Christian and pro life. (witness Romney & Guiliani plus the Huckster hanging in past all hope of getting elected just to dilute the pool)

In the fine tradition of sauce for the goose, perhaps there ought to be a second litmus test for candidates on science, and whether they have a DI/Dominionist background or not.

re: #137 Moe Katz

The problem with that model is that the gre-e-edy capitalist scallywags won't fund basic research because the shareholders are looking for a payoff in a few quarters. Research leading to immediate applications is only a fraction of the scientific process, and it depends on the 'useless' basic stuff.

Companies that are that short-sighted deserve to fail. A government could exert a little pressure here by giving a fatter write-off for grass-roots research.

Well, from my perspective on the other side of the Atlantic; when the historians write about this election, in a hundred or so years (assuming that there are still historians then), it will be remembered fro one particular feature.

This was the election when the media dropped all pretense of impartiality and became merely an adjunct to one of the campaigns. Was that enough to sink McCain on its own? Probably not - but it was a big factor. I see even on this thread, contributors talking about Obama's 'charisma', his 'communication skills', but these are things which are part of the media story about him - his eloquence and charisma are properties of his speechwriters, and most importantly, his teleprompters. His crowd magnetism is a property of scheduling speeches at events with free concerts.

We lost because McCain ran more on is Resume than on what he was going to do.

Yep. Talking to non-political types (those who don't really follow that issues that closely) who voted for Obama, a couple of things stood out:

A) They had no clue what Obama stood for other then "change". I'd give direct quotes that he and his supporters said they are going to do, and would not be believed.

B) They had no clue what McCain stood for other then he was somehow tied to Bush, therefore did not represent "change".

re: #181 Nevergiveup

Well FOX is saying ti looks like it is over for Stevens. He is down by over 2000 votes.

I'm not sure I care about him (a convicted felon) as I am about the race being stolen by ACORN for Al Franken. That would be twice in four years (the one stolen in Washington state 4 years ago).

I'm tired of these freaks stealing elections right out in the open in an "in your face" kinda way. They are NEVER brought up on charges and forced to face the consequences. There just aren't any. Very galling!

re: #172 quickjustice

I think we need people who can make things happen, not just ideologues who talk a good game. Ideology is fine, but if you can't make it happen in the real world, you might as well stay in the classroom.

Sounds about right. I liked Romney and probably would have voted for him. I'm socially conservative and I doubt Romney would have taken gay marriage to a national level. Having said that, I think it's impossible for a candidate to get to the national level without compromising their personal ideologies. But politicians are politicians and they should represent the people. I'm not necessarily going to hold a candidate to the fire because they've "sold out".

I don't think we need to throw anybody under the bus, but we all have to be honest with one another, and look at how we really look to moderates. If that is the product of distortion, how easy has it been for that distortion to stick, and have we done everything we can to keep it from sticking?

I keep saying this, but Howard Zinn and Bill Ayers teach your children civics because creationism was made to stick to every conservative school board candidate the GOP even thought about supporting, driving conservatives off the school boards.

Lost in the fighting over Terri Schiavo was the fact that most contentiousness in end-of-life decisions involves money. While some saw an affirmation of the worthiness of all life, most people saw themselves years from now dealing with an ill parent, and having to keep their loser gambling addict brother from using some form of the proposed Terri's Law to take Dad's money and stick him on life support in some dirty Medicare hellhole. And they voted out the Congress that tried to intervene back in 2006.

There are a lot of opinions when it comes to the question of abortion, and not all of them agree with yours---whatever your opinion is. As hypocritical, evil, misguided, crazy, etc. as you regard those other peoples' views---they also vote in elections, and one side or the other trying to shove their view into being the law of the land simply serves to motivate the other side.

There are ways to affirm the place of faith in our national dialogue without having the government serve as one church's or the other's outreach to the "unbelievers." Most people are as uninterested in joining your church as you are in joining theirs. In the meanwhile, the GOP has to decide which battles to pick. Ideally, let's have them pick these battles based on their collective political wisdom, rather than the need to appease their squeaky wheels.

The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.

Let's not forget the social fundamentalists who loudly proclaim themselves to be the "party base", people who base their votes on single issues like immigration and feel that it's their moral duty to teach everyone who doesn't agree with them a "lesson".

I've spent a lot of time trying to argue reason with these folks, but mostly in vain.

They're absolute poison to the party, and the sooner they are given fringe status in the GOP the better in my book.

re: #180 vapig

I'm not sure it matters. It's being pushed by the same people.

You're changing the subject. And indulging in a logical fallacy as well, even assuming that statement is true, which it's not. (There are many many advocates for stem cell research who are strongly opposed to "abortion on demand." In fact, it's very clear that few people support "abortion on demand.")

The conclusion I took issue with was:

I believe their goal is not to advance science, but to preserve abortion on demand.

Saying they are advocated by "the same people" is not the same thing and does not, again, even if true, lead to the conclusion that one is being disingenuously "pushed" to accomplish the other.

re: #159 Moe Katz

Don't get me wrong, I understand your premise, and to a great degree, I agree with you.

But just like we have seen with this mortgage mess, and all of the sweetheart mortgages for blind oversight eyes, and monetary protection in the aftermath, I am hesitant with the government backing much of anything anymore.

I am one of those folks who fit the role of a socon, albeit, live and let live.

But, I can also understand what drives many people on the socially right end of the spectrum with their protestation for things they are against.

Testing certain available lines makes sense, but if we are to be honest about what history has taught us, it never stops there. Never.

I think once the government decides to throw in fully with these kind of issues, it opens Pandora's box, and really makes an assault on individual liberty.

They find avenues, and reasons as to why what was originally agreed upon is insufficient. Truly, I feel we are not many steps away from allowing the government to make decisions individually, for the greater good of the collective.

I apologize for my rambling, but I am not totally sold on letting go of some core beliefs, (or fears if you will) in order to coerce votes.

re: #195 vapig

I think Stevens is a disgrace also, but it would have been nice to retain that seat with an interim appointment by the Gov.

re: #176 Lynn B.

Lots of spinoff links contain info that embryonic cells turn into tumors more often than adult or umbillical.

Mark Levin is going off again. I am sure his face is red.

McCain was not a conservative! All the evidence you need was his backing for shamnisty and the revision of the election contribution laws!
He was a back up to Obama just in case Obama did not win. If he wanted to win the Pres he had plenty of ammunition but he did not use it! If anyone believes that he wanted to run an "honorable" campaign, then I have a bridge for sale.
How about his recent friendly meeting with Obama where they discussed "bipartisanship" I don't know what was said but McCain was not too upset about his loss from what I can determine.
The RINO candidate was NOT a CONSERVATIVE, The RINO "progressives" were in control, the fix was in and we are all going to be the victims.

re: #187 Lizard by the Bay

I am curious Lizard. Did you watch the video on the site howobamagotelected?
What I was fascinated with was the fact that although they had NO CLUE on just about every question asked of them, when it came to Palin, the Obama voters knew DETAILS about her, DETAILS not relevant to the election. People, even her enemies, knew all there was to know about her. And she didn't have to lay out billions to buy TV time.
Obama is terrified that she is the one who will block his *president for life* bid.
May it be so!

re: #203 bellamags

Mark Levin is going off again. I am sure his face is red.

he should calm down. It's gonna be a long 4 years.

The biggest problem is that conservatives tend not to vote for some one who doesn't agree with them on every single one of what they think are the key issues. Now since these key issues very from person to person a Republican candidate tries to take as many of those right wing positions as possible. And will turn off people in the center.

On the other hand a Liberal will vote for a candidate simply because that person is not a Republican assuming that person must be the best choice.

We need to find a way to get the right wing voters to vote for a candidate how shares many of their views but maybe not one particular hard right position that they hold dear.

The current debate of "is he pro-life enough?" "Is his stance on immigration exactly the same as mine?" "Did he ever once say something about a topic that could be interpreted as against what I believe?" Has got to change.

A democrat moving to the center on some issues is seen as a pragmatist, A republican moving toward the center is called a sell out and is considered pandering for votes.

What we need is a candidate who is strong enough of a presence that the Right will vote for him/her even if not all of the key issues are there.

Good afternoon everyone!
Has anyone seen this yet? Top of the page at Drudge; VP Cheney, others indicted..[Link: www.chron.com...]

Obama chose a running mate to appeal to the center, and to buttress his perceived weaknesses: foreign policy, and experience generally.

McCain chose a running mate to appeal to the socon wing, and who added little else to his ticket besides her energy expertise, which was largely lost in the MSM shuffle.

Regardless of who won their debate (Palin did) and who committed more campaign gaffes (Biden did), and which of the two I personally prefer (that would be Palin), a tipping point critical mass of sensible center voters perceived Obama's choice as more moderate and McCain's choice as more extreme, and voted accordingly.

And thus the result becomes easy to explain: McCain picked up 1.8 million religious right voters compared to Bush/Cheney 04, but at a lethal cost, as he LOST 6.4 million moderates and independents compared to Bush/Cheney 04. Switch those totals around, and McCain narrowly wins.

The definition of insanity is supposed to be to keep making the same damn mistake, over and over again, and expecting different results. It may also be the definition, in this case, of a political dogmatism that far too frequently is joined at the hip with a religious dogmatism.

re: #170 Maui Girl

Just watched it.
My skin is crawling and I need a drink.

The media played the largest role in the defeat of McCain and Palin and also the victory of Obama. period.

re: #179 Borgia

We lost because McCain ran more on is Resume than on what he was going to do. There was plenty of unused ammunition, Public money hindered his efforts, not that I ever supported McCain Feingold either. With out Palin more of the base would have not been interested, I was not exactly thrilled at my choice. While some of you were sleeping at the wheel, doing the moderate dance, conservative measures were ratified. conservatives won by a big margin. Moderates like Chris Shays not so much and the Moderates ran the McCain campaign. In Indiana, McCain had a dork Luke Messer running the show here and the Messiah beat us here with the MEGA BUCKS and organization. Not much was spent by the Maverick here in these parts. He Showed up, but put his money else where. It was his Campaign not conservatives.

I agree and not only that he is not a Conservative and has pissed off the base to many times. McCain was not even on my radar when he was here in New Hampshire. Every time I met him and it was many times all I wanted to do was run away.

you never win by compromising your core beliefs

re: #207 fish

What we need is a candidate who is strong enough of a presence that the Right will vote for him/her even if not all of the key issues are there.

Good luck with that ;).

re: #210 buzzsawmonkey

He's in a "red state?"

absolutely. he he

re: #212 bellamags

The media played the largest role in the defeat of McCain and Palin and also the victory of Obama. period.

You think maybe eight straight years of a nearly invisible President might have contributed a little to the media's ability to so effectively shape public opinion of the GOP?

re: #209 Salamantis

Well maybe, just maybe, if the Republicans ran any adds pointing out Obama's inexperience, pointing out Obama's real radical past, if they defend Palin with passion well then maybe people would have known. Oh yeah McCain didn't want to rock the boat. And any way because of his own bill, McCain -Fiengold, he had no money!

Mccain lost because he couldnt get the Latino vote.

re: #213 BBev

I agree and not only that he is not a Conservative and has pissed off the base to many times.

Who gets to define who "the base" is, BBev?

Wishing, the left felt the need to destroy Palin. If she was such a useless harmless loser, they would not have become obessesed with her.

Example. My paper ran a daily anti-Palin column in the "A" section. I would estimate they ran about 25 stores on "troopergate"...aka tasergate. Not ONCE, not one time, did they say why she wanted the abuser fired (using his state issued stun gun on his step son, drinking on the job etc). They wrote the article to make Palin look corrupt.

And this is the more moderate paper in town.

The other daily also ran a daily anti-Palin article, but also added a second one mid-day on there web site. This was EVERY day. A minimum of two anti-Palin articles, three if on occasion with the editorial page.

I grew up the very blue, progressive state of Minnesota. My parents were lifelong Democrats until my dad went crazy one year and voted for Nixon. I am an independent and consider myself a moderate on most things.

I am tired of people blaming the social conservatives for the loss of this election. McCain is known as a RINO, not a conservative. IMO it was the economy, some voter fraud via ACORN, and the huge disparity in campaign financing that one this election for Obama.

If the Republican party starts looking more like the Democratic party just what have we accomplished?

re: #191 Alberta Oil Peon

Companies that are that short-sighted deserve to fail. A government could exert a little pressure here by giving a fatter write-off for grass-roots research.

Companies are short-sighted because they are motivated by shareholder value. They will never fund basic research adequately, and if you privatized the funding of research completely you would soon have a terrible imbalance between basic and applied research, with no fundamental scientific progress being made. Why give them tax rebates for funding basic research? That's just the same as publicly funding basic research anyway, only the nation has less control over what gets funded.

re: #217 Lizard by the Bay

You think maybe eight straight years of a nearly invisible President might have contributed a little to the media's ability to so effectively shape public opinion of the GOP?

He was invisible because of the frikin media. We are dealing with an extreme left media which controls a lot. They did the same thing to Regan.

re: #214 chukardog

you never win by compromising your core beliefs

As it turns out, you win by having no core beliefs.

re: #208 CapeCoddah

Good afternoon everyone!
Has anyone seen this yet? Top of the page at Drudge; VP Cheney, others indicted..[Link: www.chron.com...]

nutjob lawsuit. End of it.

re: #199 Lynn B.

Saying they are advocated by "the same people" is not the same thing and does not, again, even if true, lead to the conclusion that one is being disingenuously "pushed" to accomplish the other.

Oh puh-leese! I was talking about the science of the comment you flippantly stated was talking points. The guy said ONE sentence that you took issue with even though his whole paragraph was spot on. Now you are just parsing words.

Get over it!

re: #185 Wishing

I think the Jindal issue is that he actually pushed legislation..ID legislation, DesertSage. We have to look at the baggage a particular candidate may bring that will mark him as an automatic write-off.

I'm not writing anyone off for anything. The Democrats don't do it so why should we?

Obama, with his ties to radical leftists and terrorists should have have been written off too...but the Dems employed big tent strategy and DID NOT purge him...despite his background.
I getting really sick of people here saying that he isn't qualified because of certain things. The Dems didn't do that to Obama...they have the big tent...they won.

Facts are facts!

Enough about how we lost last election, the simple answer is "all of the above". The question is how do we win in the next?

Right now we can't, even though Dems have more seats on the block in 2010. We need to add to our base, and to do that we have to look at what in our party is repelling others. Regardless of the party faction the ugliness is in.

You can slam the so called Fiscons all day long for the past two congresses the Republicans controlled for instance. Did you notice how easy it was for the media to make party of the rich stick? Why was that? Did Stevens and Cunningham help that perception?

re: #219 chukardog

Mccain lost because he couldnt get the Latino vote.

It's possible that he lost because the Democrats chose him.

Ask yourself...

If it was the Dems that lost the election, would they now be debating on whether it was because they did everything to pander to their far left constituents?

re: #187 Lizard by the Bay

I don't think the numbers support the assertion that Palin hurt the ticket. The economy, an external factor magnified by Paulson's frantic kissing of Pelosi's feet, together with McCain's feckless reaction to the crisis, tanked McCain. In the minds of undecided voters, the GOP, through Bush and Paulson, owned the economic crisis. That may have been wrong, but it wasn't unreasonable.

re: #223 twincitiesgirl

I grew up the very blue, progressive state of Minnesota. My parents were lifelong Democrats until my dad went crazy one year and voted for Nixon. I am an independent and consider myself a moderate on most things.

I am tired of people blaming the social conservatives for the loss of this election. McCain is known as a RINO, not a conservative. IMO it was the economy, some voter fraud via ACORN, and the huge disparity in campaign financing that one this election for Obama.

If the Republican party starts looking more like the Democratic party just what have we accomplished?

Traditional conservatives.

223 twincitiesgirl

McCain is known as a RINO,

Who gets to define what is, and is not, a "RINO"?

re: #222 Dave the.....

When McCain chose Palin I was excited about voting for the first time since McCain's nomination. Hell, I was going to vote for him anyway, but Palin got me fired up.
That's why they worked so hard to destroy her.
Funny thing is, I think they failed.

re: #229 DesertSage

I'm not writing anyone off for anything. The Democrats don't do it so why should we?

Obama, with his ties to radical leftists and terrorists should have have been written off too...but the Dems employed big tent strategy and DID NOT purge him...despite his background.
I getting really sick of people here saying that he isn't qualified because of certain things. The Dems didn't do that to Obama...they have the big tent...they won.

Facts are facts!

They also have no principles. We do. Big difference there.

re: #202 MacGregor

Lots of spinoff links contain info that embryonic cells turn into tumors more often than adult or umbillical.

I know. Lots of spinoff links say a lot of things. I'm not here to debate the merits or demerits of stem cell research. Merely pointing out that this is a hot button issue with plenty of underlying agendas to go around and that accusing either side of unilaterally indulging in cynical manipulation of it is naive at best.

And a turn-off to a lot of voters, which is just one of many reasons why I tend to agree with much of the substance of the article Charles linked.

re: #208 CapeCoddah

Good afternoon everyone!
Has anyone seen this yet? Top of the page at Drudge; VP Cheney, others indicted..[Link: www.chron.com...]

Ho hum. Some left wing DA indicts the eeeevile Republicans. How much you wanna bet that Cheney never shows up in court, and that the whole thing falls flat, leaving the fine citizens of McAllena little poorer than they already are.

re: #149 Wendya

I love how the same people who are griping about social conservatives, who really have no power in the grand scheme of things, have no problem voting for a party willing to legislate every single moment of your life from cradle to birth.

Is the electorate really this stupid?

Yes. As evidence I submit to you "President-Elect Obama". Any questions?

re: #214 chukardog

you never win by compromising your core beliefs

Isn't that the point of this discussion? We need to decide what those "core beliefs" are! Are they small government, low taxes, individual freedoms, etc... or is socialism and nanny-statism okay so long as there's lots-o-Jesus?

I think one or two "core beliefs" have in fact been fringe beliefs for some time. It's high time this party shed some dead weight.

re: #228 vapig

Oh puh-leese! I was talking about the science of the comment you flippantly stated was talking points. The guy said ONE sentence that you took issue with even though his whole paragraph was spot on. Now you are just parsing words.

Get over it!

See ya.

re: #220 Irish Rose

Who gets to define who "the base" is, BBev?

Ya ya ya make fun, sorry. I'm tired and we have no one with any balls defending us on the right as far as I can see at this point.

re: #170 Maui Girl

You know I just can't wrap my brain around that.

All this talk we are doing here is fine, but to eviscerate ourselves over the issues we talk about here does not even come close to the real reasons why the election was lost.

Buzz alluded to the real problems as to why we are in this mess, and this exemplyfies it.

This election was no different than any previous election. In 2004, the media tried to pass off fake documents critical of a sitting president.

This time, the media just decided to not report on one side AT ALL.

The chips fell where they did. Our public is disconnected.

re: #210 buzzsawmonkey

He's in a "red state?"

I'm listening to him right now - he's my favorite!

He's here in Virginia - which WAS a red state and he's really, really pissed that all the Mary-landers have invaded the place and brought their politics with them. He says their ruining the state and he wants them gone. As a Virginian I really,

really

love it when he goes off on them. He compares them to locusts. He's spot on!

Republicans are tainted with the unvarnished truth that they ascented to power promoting smaller gov't and reduced spending-and then spent money faster than Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive, growing unfunded mandates and a new huge entitlements.
The only credit I give the Republicans (and Bush) is their stance on the war on terror and national defense. Otherwise, I hardly recognize the party I grew up in...

re: #209 Salamantis

Regardless of who won their debate (Palin did) and who committed more campaign gaffes (Biden did), and which of the two I personally prefer (that would be Palin), a tipping point critical mass of sensible center voters perceived Obama's choice as more moderate and McCain's choice as more extreme, and voted accordingly.

That same mass of voters really didn't know anything about Biden or Palin's positions on any issue. They depended on the media to inform them. You can't study Joe and come to the conclusion he's "moderate". The Republicans, once again, allowed the media to define them and that needs to stop.

re: #225 bellamags

He was invisible because of the frikin media. We are dealing with an extreme left media which controls a lot. They did the same thing to Regan.

No, they didn't. Lord knows they tried, but when Reagan got in front of those cameras, he knew he was speaking to the American people, not reporters. And in the end, the American people liked Reagan far more than the media which told them not to.

the republicans just need to make the religious and abortion issues off of the front burner

you wanna be religious, fine
just don't beat me with the Jesus stick

you wanna have an abortion
fine, don't tell me the details

but the republican party is defined by those 2 issues
and I know way too many voters who vote D
just because of one or both

rabid gun nuts, less worried about the left taking their guns than the right into forcing them into prayer at school

fiscal conservatives who sorry less about tax increases than being able to have an abortion if needed

union members who detest when the union tells them who to vote for but who are afraid of born-again Christians

and there is no dissuading these folks
as long as they perceive Republicans to be bitterly clinging to religion and/or abortion
but especially religion

re: #193 buzzsawmonkey

Excellent clarification of "a conservative" vs "being conservative".

re: #245 vapig

Mark rocks. He is spot on. I love his descriptive words for people.

Get off the phone you IDIOT! ha ha ha

okay,
i'm on limited time here
what is a soccon?

re: #174 vapig

True - I've never seen such an attack because she chose to keep her baby. The attacks on her and her son were atrocious.

I think she drew those attacks because seeing her with baby Trig gave a whole cohort of Leftist women an attack of the guilts over the abortions they had in the past. And all they can do is lash out at the one who shamed them by her action in keeping Trig to term.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, but I believe it's a choice that should only be made after a great deal of soul-searching. If we, as a society, want to reduce the incidence of abortion, the best way is find ways of giving more support for the alternatives.

re: #237 Wishing

They also have no principles. We do. Big difference there.

My only principle right now is to create a GOP majority so we can stop the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

If you want to stand on principle at a time like this, then say hello to Democrat majorities for the rest of your life.

I blame those dang gone soccer moms for the lost election...
/
but really we lost the middle not the base.IMO

re: #239 rusty_armor

LOL, I hope it does just that! These people are asses.

re: #222 Dave the..... Please read

re: #205 Wishing

I am curious Lizard. Did you watch the video on the site howobamagotelected?
What I was fascinated with was the fact that although they had NO CLUE on just about every question asked of them, when it came to Palin, the Obama voters knew DETAILS about her, DETAILS not relevant to the election. People, even her enemies, knew all there was to know about her. And she didn't have to lay out billions to buy TV time.
Obama is terrified that she is the one who will block his *president for life* bid.
May it be so!

It seems to me that what the American public wants is a young leadership, who uses the internet, wants to spread the wealth around, wishes to expand the Government, doesn't want to enter wars, and wishes to negotiate with the enemies of the United States.

Therefore, the Republican party should drop any such core values that conflict with the aforementioned to ensure that they can get elected.

I mean, come on, eventually we are going to have to drop ALL Conservative values to get elected right?.....so why not just do it. Its all about getting elected right!? Values shmalues.

re: #240 fish

Yes. As evidence I submit to you "President-Elect Obama". Any questions?

Yes, case in point for sure. . .

I think if the party needs to be free of anything, it is the wingtip coalition.

re: #252 Eowyn2

seriously? social conservative

re: #180 vapig

I'm not sure it matters. It's being pushed by the same people.

that's true. if the pro-abortion people had not tried to tell everyone that abortions would helped cure disease then I doubt there would be a controversy over stem cell research.