hey crazy republican right-wing moonbats if you don't like the president
"THAN YE CAN GTFO"

I heard some countries in the middle east have nice one party systems that also focus heavily on family values and radical religiousness. I am sure Saudi Arabia would be fun....

they have plenty of oil to, Drill Baby Drill

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 5:44 PM. Reason : L]

11/5/2008 5:43:39 PM

Quote :

"That's one thing the Republicans definitely need to learn from the Democrats; how to run an effective campaign."

All it takes is 10 times the money your opponent has. oh, and the media in your pocket, as well, hiding any dirt that might come up

11/5/2008 6:06:43 PM

^ Obama and the DNC raised only about ~30% more, and that could have been arguably due to people who would have donated just being sick of the GOP.

And really, I am starting to solidifiy my belief that it was Palin that lost McCain this election.
see:
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=515964&page=16#12256324

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 6:08:24 PM

yes, but Obama himself could spend way more than just an extra 30%. His advertising budget was at least triple that of McCain's.

one thing is absolutely true: when Obama said that campaign financing needed reform, he was right, but NOT for the bullshit reasons he gave at the time.

11/5/2008 6:10:30 PM

Yeah, I could have sworn that Obama, much like most of his fellow Dem congressmen, was a huge proponent of publicly financed campaigns right up until he realized that it would benefit him more politically to opt out and outspend his opponent.

11/5/2008 6:12:24 PM

Even if Obama had opted for public financing, the turnout wouldn't have been different.

The DNC would have STILL out-raised the RNC with donations from individual grass roots donors, which is where the Obama campaign drew their financial strength from.

11/5/2008 6:15:11 PM

i dunno. When you can advertise that much you are bound to draw large numbers. The black turnout was likely going to come no matter what. But the advertisements and sheer spending levels played far more of a role than you are letting on. He advertised in fucking VIDEO GAMES, for crying out loud.

Barack Obama was, basically, Ron Paul, but with a lot more money and a hell of a lot less substance

11/5/2008 6:18:20 PM

COnsidering that Obama's biggest gains came after the debates, I don't buy it was his funding that made the difference.

11/5/2008 6:23:07 PM

give me a break. you know better than that. He really began to pick up once McCain was out of money and had to pick which states to lose less badly. And even then, Obama just kept on spending. That, and the housing collapse, during which time Obama was able to freely scream "MCCAIN = BUSH!!!" with absolutely no possibility of a response by McCain.

Face it, money ran this election for Obama. McCain just sealed the deal by being totally inept

11/5/2008 6:25:34 PM

considering that most of his money was spent after the debates, particularly his primetime infomercials, it's hard to see how all that money couldn't make a difference.

11/5/2008 6:26:10 PM

I'm not saying it didn't make a difference, i'm saying Obama would have won despite the money.

11/5/2008 6:27:02 PM

I agree with that. I just don't like how quickly he abandoned his principles for the sake of political expedience.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 6:29 PM. Reason : 2]

11/5/2008 6:29:28 PM

^ you mean, like in 2 seconds?

11/5/2008 6:30:22 PM

Awesome set of dialogues from from a group of conservatives about this topic:

http://www.slate.com/id/2203800

Tucker Carlson had a pretty interesting point (there's a first for everything):

Quote :

" The various Republican constituencies need some reason to hang together. It's not obvious what socially conservative, big-government types like Mike Huckabee have in common with economically conservative libertines like Rudy Giuliani. So why are they in the same party? It used to be because they both hated communism. Then it was Bill Clinton. Most recently, it was a shared fear of Islamic extremism. What now? Time to think of something—quick. There's no natural reason these two groups should be connected. In fact, they sort of despise each other, as you'll notice immediately if you ever eat with them."

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2008 3:46:43 PM

^ I think it'll force conservatives to move more towards libertarianism, rather than catering to the religious right, which is where they've been drifting since Bush (evidenced in the pick of Palin).

11/6/2008 4:04:04 PM

Quote :

"All of these factors and it was still fairly close in the popular vote"

close, really? obama was 13.5% higher in popular vote. I really don't consider that close since that is about as far as it gets. unless, then, you're going to claim that every race is a close one.

11/6/2008 4:08:23 PM

I think the evangelical stuff is extremely overblown. I din't think Christianity is the rudder of the Republican part the mainstream media portrays it as.

As far as anti-intellectualism, I'm not so sure I understand what yall are talking about. How are the Republicans anti-intellectual?

11/6/2008 4:41:33 PM

Denying global warming, trying to teach evolution in schools, and being hard-core anti-abortion and stem-cell research on religious grounds are all anti-intellectual stances.



[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 4:44 PM. Reason : 2]

11/6/2008 4:43:37 PM

^^ They're not the rudder, but they represent a voting base that's worth catering too.

Anti-intellectualism is more rampant though, and I think for reasons unrelated to religion.

11/6/2008 4:49:51 PM

^^denying global warming?

11/6/2008 4:53:53 PM

Quote :

"He advertised in fucking VIDEO GAMES, for crying out loud."

i'd argue that this is just a smart, new demographic that politicians will all be catering toward in the future. everything about obama's campaign had a youthful feel about it. even his commercials, paper and digital media all had the appearance of being done by a young and energetic staff. his commercials had a strong production value, and his graphics had a unified and cohesive feel. even the red and blue image of him that you always see has an iconic feel to it, whether you support his policies or not.

whether it's going to be a new era of youtube style politics or video game advertisements, political parties are going to shift to this. it shouldn't be alarming, it's just that the youth demographic broke away from a lot of their stereotypes and actually voted this time around, and getting your message to them is going to be different. obama ran a campaign that encouraged early voting, and it benefited him GREATLY.

the gop is going to have to realize that they are going to have to reach out and shift their ideals to attract young educated people and minorities if they want a chance to win the next election, because hanging on to family values and religious zealotry just ain't gonna cut it in todays world.



i also find the notion that republicans needing to learn from democrats on how to run an election kind of ironic, and the notion that too much money in an campaign suddenly being a travesty laughable, as republicans have easily been better financed in past elections. that's not to say that their shouldn't be a cap, but i find it amusing that it is all of a sudden an urgent issue.

this year, mccain took a page from the "pander to fear" pages more than he should have. had he been the same mccain as he was in 2000, he would have won, and as a democrat, i'd be ok with that. instead, he went with the rovian fear mongering tactics that got bush re-elected, and it completely blew up in his face. i'd like to think that the era of mud-slinging in politics may not get a politician as far as it used and may even have the opposite effect as expected (dole vs hagan, for example), but i'm sure that's too early to call. but one thing for sure, is that campaigning has forever been changed in the u.s. because of obama, and new ways to connect with the voter are going to be explored from here on out.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2008 4:53:56 PM

Quote :

"" The various Republican constituencies need some reason to hang together. It's not obvious what socially conservative, big-government types like Mike Huckabee have in common with economically conservative libertines like Rudy Giuliani. So why are they in the same party? It used to be because they both hated communism. Then it was Bill Clinton. Most recently, it was a shared fear of Islamic extremism. What now? Time to think of something—quick. There's no natural reason these two groups should be connected. In fact, they sort of despise each other, as you'll notice immediately if you ever eat with them."

A) Rudy Guiliani wasn't all that "fiscally conservative"
B) The common thread is a general disdain for civil/social liberties. Which is what has held the Republican party together as long as it has, particularly through the Bush years - it hasn't been fiscal conservativism, it's been a common disdain for the notion of individual liberty, most especially when it comes to the social side.

Being pro-choice does not instantly make one a paragon of civil liberties. And given Guiliani's tenure as mayor, it seems some folks have an awfully short memory.

11/6/2008 4:57:49 PM

This just goes to show that people with more money will usually win anything.

11/6/2008 4:59:34 PM

"THAN YE CAN GTFO"

But where would they go?

11/6/2008 5:05:21 PM

Quote :

"I think it'll force conservatives to move more towards libertarianism, rather than catering to the religious right, which is where they've been drifting since Bush (evidenced in the pick of Palin)."

One would hope, but the other commentators seemed pretty content with the social/fiscal conservative coalition. They seemed to be under the impression that this election was lost due to poor marketing.

11/6/2008 5:20:54 PM

The Red areas of that map above definitely represent the most intellectual and wealthiest areas of the country lol

11/6/2008 5:22:26 PM

This election was lost for the Republicans because even American's realize that you can't be the fiscally conservative when you've spent more money then the other guys and increased the size of government.

The 'conservative' umbrella of today was formed when libertarians and social conservatives were forged into the same movement by conservative intellectuals like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley and this was done primarily by using communism as a boogyman.

Without communism, the movement had no real traction. While Bush DID barely get elected in 2000, you should all remember that his Administration was floundering in its first year without a cohesive direction and purpose. That changed with September 11th, and conservatives as a group had a clear, unifying purpose which to rally their disparate party with. Terrorist were now the 'them' and the United States once again represented Liberty, and Justice to fight the readily apparent 'evil.' Just like the old days of communism.

In fact, Bush's speeches labeling the axis of evil were not entirely different then Reagan speeches pre-1984, rhetorically. Just replace terrorism with communism, and you'd essentially have the same content.

What won the 2004 election? War and the threat of terrorism.

11/6/2008 5:48:10 PM

add the religious right into the mix under the umbrella (especially starting in the 80s, and REALLY in the 90s), and don't state that anti-communism was the most dominant binding thread (there were tons of staunch anti-communist Democrats), and I agree with you.


and yeah, the GOP extending a middle finger to every wing of the party save the neo-cons and the religious right is what's sinking their ship. I thought the writing was on the wall in '06, but then again, neither neocons nor bible-thumpers are particularly adept at either taking note of or taking heed of said writing, in pretty much any circumstance. they both seem perfectly willing to ride it into the ground with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 6:21 PM. Reason : asfasfd]

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 6:24 PM. Reason : asdfads]

11/6/2008 6:18:51 PM

I'm going to sit back, relax, and watch the democrats royally fuck up this country over the next 2 years. The next election will be 1994 all over again.

In the long term, this is good for the GOP. They have time to sit back and reaccess themselves and refocus on what got them the White House, the Senate and the House to begin with.

I do cringe that Obama will put some far left nuts on the bench which is unfortunate for our legal system, but I think this is exactly what the Republican Party needs. Let the dems run things into the ground and get back to their Conservative roots of lower taxes, less government, and controlled spending.

11/6/2008 6:25:15 PM

In eight years I hope to be lucky enough to pretend like my party of choice hasn't completely fucked this country.

Wait, what?

11/6/2008 6:29:16 PM

I like how the market has already reacted to the Obama presidency with its lowest drop in over 20 years. Raises in the capital gains tax, dividends tax, and windfall profits are going to do wonders for our economy. Yee haw!!11!!1!!!

11/6/2008 6:32:07 PM

I cringe at the thought of Sarah Palin winning the 2012 nomination.

11/6/2008 6:37:15 PM

^^ I think you're late by about 5 idiots on this site to try and claim the drop over the past 2 days was due to an Obama win.

11/6/2008 6:42:42 PM

Quote :

"I do cringe that Obama will put some far left nuts on the bench which is unfortunate for our legal system, but I think this is exactly what the Republican Party needs. Let the dems run things into the ground and get back to their Conservative roots of lower taxes, less government, and controlled spending."

Actually, Obama placing leftists on the bench would be the most appropriate position, especially given that the ones that are in the position to leave vote on the left side. Currently its split 4/1/4. Replacing those on the bench now with people with a left lean would merely keep the status quo.

Quote :

"I like how the market has already reacted to the Obama presidency with its lowest drop in over 20 years."

I don't know if you're just making stuff up as you go along or if you're merely misinformed. Do you not recall the 777 drop we had the other month? this weeks performance is nothing out of the ordinary for anything we've seen since yom kipur. asserting that obama is responsible is doesn't hold water.

Quote :

"I cringe at the thought of Sarah Palin winning the 2012 nomination."

i wouldn't mind it really. I think that she would be easily defeated especially since the novelty of her personality will have worn off by then. Shes too far right for a lot of social issues. Even with a moderate republican i can't see her winning. In fact, i think she'd do worse than mccain did.

11/6/2008 7:44:48 PM

Quote :

""I like how the market has already reacted to the Obama presidency with its lowest drop in over 20 years.""

you sir do not know much.

Quote :

"i wouldn't mind it really. I think that she would be easily defeated especially since the novelty of her personality will have worn off by then. Shes too far right for a lot of social issues. Even with a moderate republican i can't see her winning. In fact, i think she'd do worse than mccain did."

agreed. i'm convinced Obama is a two-termer.

by 2016, i'm sure there will be some young intelligent Republicans that are viable candidates.

11/6/2008 8:51:39 PM

^not quite. Obama is a pretty far left individual, and the democratic congress/senate is much more liberal than they were the last time they were in power. Ergo, any "left-leaning" justices they appoint are going to be pretty fucking out there.

11/6/2008 9:00:10 PM

i guess time will only tell for that one tke. he is left, but not radically left (some would argue with this but i don't care to as its not he point) but even if here were radical his appointment of leftist judges wouldn't do anything other than keep votes where they are now because the conservatives on the court aren't going to bend to anything radically left, meaning the only things that will get a majority vote are things that would be moderately left to moderately right. if the retiring judges weren't the ones that were on the left side of things i would be inclined to agree with you that it could be a potential issue, but at this juncture i can't find myself doing so.

11/6/2008 9:04:39 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/

Republicans stayed home. If the GOP gets back to its roots, which does not include the McCains of the party, it will be fine. I know some like to bitch and moan about those darned evangelicals and such, but the fact is that your brand of republicanism isn't what put the GOP in power to begin with, and had a lot to do with its loss in power.

11/6/2008 9:14:22 PM

11/6/2008 9:16:10 PM

Quote :

"A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008."

If only you guys had turned out 1.3% more voters! You... still would've lost by a huge margin.

Attn: Republicans-- ditch the Wlfpk4Life's of your party, and rational people will start to vote for you again.

11/6/2008 9:19:41 PM

I love how dye in the wool liberals love to tell the Republican Party how to run its campaigns, pretty laughable actually. Actually it took people just like myself who took over congress in '94 to begin with, in fact I am the type of Republican that you should fear.

11/6/2008 9:21:37 PM

Quote :

"I am the type of Republican that you should fear."

The type of Republican who will vote Republican no matter how awful their candidates are? Scary!

What's to fear, really? You people are the reason the Republicans have become irrelevant.

11/6/2008 9:23:23 PM

Yes, you are soooo right, I slept nights dreaming that Ted Kennedy and Feingold would cosponsor education and campaign finance legislation and expand the size of the federal government and debt by unforseen amounts. You caught me there, junior. Have any other brilliant revelations?

11/6/2008 9:25:35 PM

What does that have to do with anything?

11/6/2008 9:29:59 PM

It has everything to do with why the GOP failed. Bush was a capitulator who tried to appease the left by encouraging them to leave their fingerprints on every piece of major legislation during his 8 years. He did exactly what the supposed pundits claim the people want, which is apparently a middle of the road president who doesn't appease anybody with watered down legislation which cause more problems than they fix.

So sure, if the party wants to fail, they will take boone's advice and try to out democrat the democrats on key issues by electing weak idealogues whose votes change with the tide of political opinion.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2008 9:34:35 PM

Quote :

"Bush was a capitulator who tried to appease the left by encouraging them to leave their fingerprints on every piece of major legislation during his 8 years."

And you still voted for them.

Yet appealing to people like you is supposed to win votes for your side? Doesn't compute.

Quote :

"a middle of the road president"

Ahahaahaha.

Bush is "middle of the road." No wonder you think Obama is far left.



And by the way, nowhere have I recommended that the GOP become more liberal; I've merely wished that they'd get less stupid. I'm sorry that you conflate "smart" with "liberal." Though I understand that it's an easy mistake.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2008 9:41:08 PM

And what's the alternative to Bush? Kerry and Gore? Pffft some choice. I didn't vote for Bush in either primary. It's not like I was given much of a choice, it's like would I rather lose a finger or have my throat slashed.

Seriously, what's conservative about the No Child Left Behind act? Or campaign finance reform? I forget some of the other legislation that was equally as bad.

And conversely, what fueled the Republican Revolution? What gave the Republicans control of Congress which ultimately paved the way for Bush to win in 2000? Clinton's 1st two years, which consisted of Dem majorities in the House and Senate, gave us a failed attempt at socialized health care, raises in taxes and NAFTA, failures in Somalia, the 1st World Trade Center bombing, etc. Democratic ineptness and Republican leaders with vision is all it will take, dunno how much of the latter we have at the moment, and I hope it doesn't take another 40 years to rediscover our ideological backbone.

The Dems have had this kind of control before only to screw things up (Carter comes to mind, ugh what painful economic times, not to mention embarrassing on an international scale). Out of chaos comes order, it's the left's turn, again, to be chaotic, and we'll be here to clean up the mess.

11/6/2008 9:56:53 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, what's conservative about the No Child Left Behind act? Or campaign finance reform? I forget some of the other legislation that was equally as bad."

And yet you still voted for them.

Quote :

"And conversely, what fueled the Republican Revolution? What gave the Republicans control of Congress which ultimately paved the way for Bush to win in 2000?"

Winning independents


Again, you're not presenting any evidence that your failure was due to lack of conservative appeal. You're a walking, typing monument to the fact that people like you can be taken for granted.

11/6/2008 10:05:17 PM

Underestimating the right is exactly what put the left and the dems in the minority to begin with.

Quote :

"Again, you're not presenting any evidence that your failure was due to lack of conservative appeal. You're a walking, typing monument to the fact that people like you can be taken for granted."

It wasn't too terribly long ago that Republicans set the ideological agenda and controlled the debate for ideas, even Clinton had to sign welfare reform. The left hasn't had a new idea in decades, and it took a capitulator who allowed your idealogues to have a seat at the table that won your majorities and the presidency.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 10:14 PM. Reason : more]

11/6/2008 10:09:37 PM

Underestimating the rightleft is exactly what put the leftright and the demsgop in the minority to begin with.


You're one sharp cookie!

11/6/2008 10:14:49 PM