God, do I hate being right all the time. Almost two years ago to the day, shortly after the GOP lost their majority on the Hill in 2006, I predicted that Bush would be a lame duck for the remainder of his presidency, that the GOP would lose the White House in 2008, and that there would be a not so subtle shift in the tenor of the news outlets after their latest media whore was elected.
That last prediction hasn't happened, yet. But look for it in the coming weeks and months ahead.
As for the other two, well…those predictions are now academic. The question of why the election went "left" keeps coming up and most of the conservative talking heads don't have a clue as to the real answer. While they're being conciliatory and comforting themselves with the effrontery of a moderate Obama administration, I offer the following: When will you backroom GOP geniuses figure out that you can’t win elections as long as keep stabbing your base in the back?
Contrary to popular belief, the outcome of this election wasn’t just because of an electrified democrat base; it was a conservative judgment on the GOP. If they (the Republican Party) had taken my advice two years ago, we could've avoided all of this. But no. Instead of going after the true conservative base, they decided to sell us out for the squishy middle. The result has been catastrophic for the “Grand” Ol' Party both in this election and the last. How catastrophic? McCain only won 80% of the conservative vote and roughly the same amount of the Republican vote. In sharp contrast, he lost the moderate and independent vote to Barry by 39 to 60 percent respectively.
If that weren't bad enough, the dems also increased their advantage on the Hill. With the latter loss being somewhat of a question mark in many people's minds, since the democrat controlled Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush Jr. The voters' answer??? I know; send in more liberal democrats. You gotta be kiddin’ me, right? I mean, what in the name of corn on the cob is going on around here?!!!
Some of you are asking, "What about Sarah Palin?" Doesn't she stand for the classical conservative ideals held by old school conservatives. The answer is yes, for the most part. She was much closer to the Right than the party favorites. But it was too little too late. Sadly, Palin ended up a footnote in this election and I’m sure that now what with her being exonerated for the so-called Troopergate, etc., the press will ante up a front page apology for treating her like crap, even as they licked the boots of Comrade Obama. Anyway, with all due respect to her, she was nothing more than a classical conservative concession–one the party was only willing to make after they realized their hopes of capturing the mushy middle evaporated like so many of their campaign promises.
The sad result is that we (the people) will be getting exactly what they (the party machine) so richly deserve. Their rush to sell us out has proven exactly what my good friend Ted West always says: "When you lay down with liberals, you come up smelling like garbage." This is one time where I really do hate to say, “I told you so…” Had they taken my advice and gone after the conservative vote (and meant it), they would've won this election. And now if you don't mind, I think I'll go have a beer…while I still have the money to buy it.
I have been predicting it for a while now, but the conservatives had it right with the McCain pick. He went after the independents, and as an independent I supported him. My mother who has been a conservative her whole political life was also going to vote for McCain. We both changed our position when one key thing happened. That was the nomination of Palin. Palin doesn’t appeal to moderates, and she doesn’t appeal to the conservatives base. She appeals only to the new evangelical christian base that Bush converted during the 2000 election, and while it may have seemed like a good strategy, since McCain lost to Bush purely from the evangelical base, it was not. I am now seeing a party that is suffering from an identity crisis.
I just wish that McCain had won the nomination in 2000, and then there would have never been a political climate that allowed Obama to be elected now.
Following what happened to the whigs though, I can only really see the republicans dying as a political party, since they have lost all they stood for.
Obama is not going to ruin the economy, as the president has a lot less power than most think. Obama is just going to provide another Clinton administration.
The rumors circulating about Obama considering McCain as an adviser is the only hope I can see for the GOP. Since Lincolns appointment of a democrat saved the party from total failure.
These next few months will be interesting to say the least.
OK, Chad, now I get it, but I regret coming here and having to read a comment like one of the one’s above from someone who shall remain nameless, because Evan is exactly the reason why decent, reasonable people will have to suffer through four years of Obama who, by the way, is not the first African-American President, he’s the first Non-American President.
Thanks for your very salient comments, Evan. You know my mileage on this issue varies from your own, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of mathematical precision. The numbers quoted in the piece I wrote are accurate. A 20 percent conservative base and roughly the same amount in registered Republicans would’ve made the difference in this election.
Also, it is a hard stat that the majority of registered voters who call themselves moderates are in line with neoliberal philosophy. Pragmatically speaking, that means there are a lot of liberals in moderate clothing. Don’t believe me? In 2004, 45 percent of those exit polled declared they were moderate. The interesting thing about this is that when pollsters began comparing the values of those moderates with the values of liberals, there was almost no difference. Since 2004 that percentage has ballooned. Simply put, there is no substantive difference between moderates and liberals, which means the very notion of a moderate base is just a myth perpetuated by liberals who don’t know they’re liberal. Now that’s whatcha call irony.
Bottom line, the GOP tried to appeal to a base (the liberal one) which was never theirs a priori. The numbers bare this fact out. So does their pick to represent the party of conservativism. They moved left when they chose McCain. In doing so, they miscalculated that the conservative base would just do as the neoliberals have done: say “YES WE CAN!” and back the party favorite. If they’re looking to place blame for how this election turned out, they needn’t look any further than their own back yard. Committed conservatives like myself have had it with what used to be our party. That’s why many of us are disengaging from politics altogether. The party no longer represents us. Therefore, until they get their act together they will be begging for votes where ever they can find them. If they can’t find ‘em…well, then perhaps the party is better off dead, since it serves no practical purpose for those they are allegedly representing. I’ve been saying for a long, long time, now, that the party needs to be reformed. Could it be that Barry’s win will be the catalyst for “change” in the Republican Party? Only time will tell, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I do at least agree with you on one point, Evan: “These next few months will be interesting to say the least.”
Liberals who claim to be moderate know they are doing it. They have been doing it since 2002. They use the facade of a liberal so that they can debate conservative and pretend they hold no bias. Moderate makes you sound a lot less opinionated than conservative or liberal.
I am truly a moderate, I have supported the republicans in both elections in the 90′s, and personally thought Bush was to liberal for the GOP nomination, although he has always campaigned as a conservative. My leanings toward McCain were only after the GOP nomination. Originally I supported Ron Paul, because he stood for the parties core value of small government, although he was for some liberal issues too.
To tell you the truth even at the end when the walls came crashing in I would have still voted McCain, but i decided to vote for neither, because Palin really turned me off.
The reason I said the McCain victory in 2000 would have been a good thing is because McCain would have had a much better strategy for the war, and would avoid that common liberal accusation that Bush should fight. Politically McCain is free from blame as a nameless figure who has never experienced war. McCain has experienced things worse than almost all people. PR people would have had no trouble keeping him liked
I look forward to the destruction of America; not the America I grew up with. No, the new, People’s States of America. See, I don’t travel, nor live in a big city, so when terrorism comes to the U.S. next year, all the bastions of liberalism will be hit. Because that’s where the largest population centers are. I will truly relish the reduction in the left population, and listening to them whine and complain that their messiah isn’t doing what he said he would. Maybe I’ll live long enough to see the United States be rebuilt. Ah, well, it was good while it lasted.
TROG:
You shouldn’t say things like that around here. People will think you’re serious…LOL.
EVAN:
Since we obviously share some common ground in our political views, I am curious to know what turned you off about Palin. Also, you have classified yourself as a true moderate (not like the posers who make up the majority of the “moderate” base). Would you mind summing up why you classify yourself as moderate?
TED: Always good to “see” you my friend. Glad you stopped in despite your regrets as at, uh…well, stopping in. We’ve missed you and your rapier-like wit. See you.
Chad,
Evan nauseates me, you patronize me, but Trog excites me. As you know, I’m in Phoenix. And you know what that signifies: May we become the Phoenix States of America!?
TED:
I’m not real sure how you meant that. Hopefully, you meant it in the sense of offering support or aid to a friend. The other definition would leave me stymied. I’m speaking of the usage of the word most often employed, that is to adopt an air of condescension toward: to treat haughtily or coolly. If the latter definition was your meaning, let me assure nothing could be further from my mind.
And I should add that I’d much rather we stay a people’s republic…in the Founding Fathers’ sense, NOT in the Red China sense. But then I’m just weird like that:)
See you guys and have a great weekend!
My main reason for not liking Palin is that I don’t like her spending policies while she was mayor. The fact that she left her town in debt scared me. I think that if the conservatives nominate someone it should be someone against big government spending. I thought small government was what the this party was about.
Palin utilized the veto to slash more local projects than any other governor in her state’s history: Ten percent of Alaska’s budget this year, passing on $268 million in savings to Alaska’s residents. She also cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year.
That said, Evan, you are right about conservativism. It is supposed to be about limited government. This is one of the reasons so many conservatives have abandoned the party. They betrayed us when they went neocon.
In 2004-2006, they thought that they could buy our votes with fiscal irresponsibility. They found out different when the 2006 elections rolled around. We (the base) thought that in voting them out of office (in some cases not just refusing to go to the polls, but voting for democrats) we would send them a strong message: they needed to get back to conservative ideals; they needed to keep their promises. Somehow, they still didn’t get the message. Perhaps, now they will listen. If they still refuse, then they deserve extinction ala political Darwinism, and we deserve a new conservative party.
A lot of the old conservatives are moving to the constitution party, and if it turns out that the republicans are done, I am ready for the constitution party to take over. There is a bad side to the coin though. The democrats seem to be creeping into republican territory this election, and if it goes the way the republican party did 40 years ago the democrats will become the conservatives, and there will be an even more liberal party representing the other side. Have fun sleeping with that on your mind.
Scary stuff, indeed.