Obligatory minor nitpick: I continue to object to naming every media fueled frenzy with the -gate suffix. "Troopergate" was a petty case of he said/she said, and served as the sole speck of dirt the Democrats could pull up on Palin (and made for a convenient talking point to parrot around the blogs).

Can't we at least save the scandal references for the big stuff, like a 3 year investigation that mired an Administration in accusations directed at entirely the wrong persons ?

Unbeliever: What do you expect? 24-hour news networks need a hook to bring in viewers. By labeling every plausible scandal with the same brush as the biggest scandal in modern times, they draw people in. Then again, I also find that throwing 'gate' on everything makes it more exciting (my dogs are currently being investigated in 'peegate')

To David: that's an interesting take on it, and I'll have to think on it more.

I think one of the reasons McCain got elected (outside of Iraq) is that the republican party is struggling to find a new identity; which fit well with McCains 'maverick' status. But when push came to shove, McCain did not clearly define himself (or his campaign) beyond the term 'maverick', and thus did not give a new direction for the RNC to grow.

Palin, for all her charisma, didn't help answer the question. I am still unclear what Palin could have given our government... a 'fresh' voice is nice now and then, but how (specifically) would this work? What does she see that needs to be fixed (and how)? I never clearly understood the answers.

So now, the RNC needs to figure out what it can bring to the future. Why only the RNC can solve today's problems. Without that base strategy, it's arguments are not supported.

I think one of the reasons McCain got elected (outside of Iraq) is that the republican party is struggling to find a new identity; which fit well with McCains 'maverick' status. But when push came to shove, McCain did not clearly define himself (or his campaign) beyond the term 'maverick', and thus did not give a new direction for the RNC to grow.

Or, to put it another way: in another year where the Democrats were running a strong "NOT BUSH" message, McCain's core message was "NOT the (exact) same kind of Republican you all hate". Obama had other themes to run on as well--the ever nebulous "change" schtick, plus his own personal narrative--but all of McCain's most closely-held policies did not resonate with voters on either side of the squishy middle, and he knew better than to tout them.

Palin, for all her charisma, didn't help answer the question.

Very true. Palin was always visibly awkward when trying to fill the veep slot's role, i.e. touting the virtues of the guy at the top of the ticket. The public GOP infighting you see now is to settle the question of whether Palin was sunk by McCain's party line (my own view), or whether Palin was a millstone to McCain's drowning campagin.

But everyone generally agrees she was chosen for her role as state party reformer to match McCain's public persona of GOP gadfly. In an election year where that is the losing message, it is very hard to see how she could successfully define a message that the prime candidate consistently failed to define himself, then use it to deliver a victory.

John McCain the new "leader" of the republicrat party? Now that is just mean and uncalled for.

"Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right—those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives."

"Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change."

Governor Ronald Reagan, 1977

I'm not sure why conservatives feel we need to reinvent the wheel here. Reagan clearly spelled out what conservatism stood for. Where it differs from what the Republican Party has offered us the last decade or so (and it surely differs) we need pruned from the party. We should start figuring out which congressional individuals have become coopted by the Washington Way, and see that they are challenged and defeated in 2 years.

Well, the main difference between Bush and McCain is that working for Bush is relatively low stress while working for McCain is a pain in the petute. I mean, judgment issues aside, working for McCain was (or some I'm told) more like working for Charlie Chaplin, who he happens to resemble. A rather nasty character in the flesh.

Towards the beginning of the primary season, one might guess that we would end up with this sort of melt-down in the Republican party.

The Democrats were trying to choose between (at least) two strong, attractive candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both with strong appeal to various large constituencies, and both capable of attracting the loyalty of their Party, and of being a good President if elected. Assuming they didn't tear each other to pieces during the primaries.

The Republicans were trying to choose between (at least) three seriously, perhaps fatally flawed candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, none of whom could appeal to the entirety of their own party. While several could perhaps be a good President if elected, it wasn't clear that any of them could attract enough support, even of their own party, to get elected. (Which is, of course, how it worked out.)

Either kind of decision --- the choice between great but different alternatives, and the choice between terrible alternatives --- is very stressful and difficult, as we saw during the primaries. But the outcomes are quite different: one party is guaranteed to field a good candidate, unless they self-destruct (a real risk for Democrats, of course), while the other is guaranteed to field a seriously flawed candidate.

Obviously, if I'd been willing to put my money where my mouth was last January, I could have made a killing on InTrade's Presidential futures. So it goes.

As far as McCain is concerned, all I can say is that if you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

The Rovians took a perfectly likeable candidate with a ton of goodwill in the eyes of the American people and made him into one of the nastiest most negative characters ever to run for high office. I remember seeing the Alfred E. Smith videos and finally saw the real McCain.

As far as the Bush traitors are concerned, the Neo-Cons top the list.

If you want to rebuild the Party you have to raze the Rovian - NeoCon foundation on which it was based.

I would think that conservatives would have to come face to face with the incontrovertible fact that Karl Rove's politics of division brought the party to where it is now.

He oversaw the most precipitous and deserved decline of a party that I can remember. Purge the lot of them and lets build something forward looking exciting and electable.

You are beginning to hear this out of Miami, with Pawlenty taking the lead.

#5 from Mark Buehner at 9:28 pm on Nov 12, 2008

I'm not sure why conservatives feel we need to reinvent the wheel here. Reagan clearly spelled out what conservatism stood for. Where it differs from what the Republican Party has offered us the last decade or so (and it surely differs) we need pruned from the party.

Mark,

Weren't you the one that called me a Know nothing Paleo-Con when I have ranted about how deleterious an effect Rove has had on the party over the past decade?

What needs to be pruned is Rovianism and Neo-Conservatism, both of which sustain them selves on their own ignorance and hollow bluster.

If the Party goes again towards a Palin type candidate and or relies on a southern strategy, kiss 2112 goodbye now. We have alienated the country.

Palin, for all her charisma, didn't help answer the question.

On the contrary, Palin answered the Question. But the question was, why would anyone put a party in power that would put her a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

I don't get this Palin worship. She was a disaster. And, I might add she continues to be. If the party cannot face up to that, then it does't deserve high office.

Listen to Pawlenty in Miami. This is where the party has to go, unless it desires to become a perpetual minority in National Government.

[Drive-by; gratuitous third reich reference elided. Beard, I know it must have felt great to do what you just did. But if you do it again, you're looking at bench time at best. --NM]

Beard, congratulations on tripping the Godwin alarm.

Further posts by you on this thread remain or disappear at the sufferance of the several Marshals.

Huh? What's the Godwin alarm? I guess I must have missed some dust-up.

If I have offended anyone by my remarks [#11, now deleted], I am sorry for that.

Beard:

We favor substance. We are generally accepting of one-liners from posters who have a good batting average.

The problem wasn't offense, per se. The problem was a drive-by one-line post about a Republican advisor, that included a link to the description of a Nazi.

Hyperbolic comparisons are rarely very substantive; ditto one-line posts. The combination was fatal, in my view, to any reasoned discourse; so I deleted it.

Armed Liberal recently deleted an entire comment thread because he did not find the content appropriate.

Both he and I are getting a little quicker on the trigger lately.

PS: re Godwin's Law: (link)

This is hysterical. A post party purge on the pages of WOC.
That said Republicans have always have had a lot to say that is valuable usually in regards to economics. The rest of your message has always been one of false exclusion, intolerance and racism by smiley face messengers to hide your real agenda of putting corporate interest first. Witness the current financial meltdown.

Democrats at least talk about making people lives better even if their merger of corporate interests run along French lines. You might want to at least engage people's pocketbook interests.

Robert M:

I assume you mean "post-election party purge". (Sometimes you seem to skip words -- it makes it harder to figure out what you mean.)

You must not have been paying attention. Several contributors have been talking that way for months and months, long before the election.

Who is the smiley faced racist here?

Mr Shaw: I'm wondering what "false exclusion" actually means. True non-exclusion?

Between the Civil War and the plurality victory of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 only one Democrat was elected to the White House. Ironically he managed to defeat a ticket that included the Commander in Chief of one of the most powerful political organization that has ever existed in the US, outside a political party: The Grand Army of the Republic. Its head, a fellow who is credited with founding the organization as well as the conception of Memorial Day, was a popular Union General and "war hero," and was the Vice Presidential candidate on the James G. Blaine ticket: John A. Logan.

But even with all those advantages the Blaine/Logan ticket couldn't beat Grover Cleveland. Their campaign just happened to coincide with a low point in the political influence of the G.A.R. and Cleveland simply out-campaigned them. Cleveland was also, quite probably, a better President than Blaine would have been, and certainly better than Logan.

In spite of the fact that I like Palin, I think we'd better look elsewhere for a candidate in 2012.

I should make some corrections, and I'll put them here rather than in my post.

First, to call the post defeat Republican Party fight a "nighmare" was casual and rhetorically flashy, a bad combination. I should have called it a mess. It's worse than normal, that's all.

Second, I pointed to the the Bush leftovers working for McCain. I should have called them Bush / Cheney leftovers, and said that John McCain does have some personal loyalists, just not nearly enough.

Since I posted, an Instapundit reader, Edward Tabakin, gave a personal explanation of John McCain's post-defeat failure to lead. I find it plausible, as does Glen Reynolds (link):

"I have a simpler explanation for why McCain isn't defending Palin against the smears. He hates her. She drew bigger crowds, more enthusiastic crowds, more loving crowds that he could ever get. Remember, the initial plan was to send her out to small towns and rural America, to rally the bitter clingers of Bibles and guns to McCain's side. But there came a moment -- maybe in the Friday rally where he announced her as his pick, maybe during the convention -- where both McCain and Palin realized that she could go to Klamath Falls National Forest and draw a bigger crowd than he could in Red State, Texas, and that forced McCain to do joint rallies with Palin. She could whip the crowds up for him, get a big, big roar, bigger than he could get on his own. The problem was, for her, the cheers were from the heart; for him, from a sense of duty. It's the political version of the eternal triangle."

"My feeling is that anyone caught in that situation might have that sort of reaction. That it's happening to Senator McCain makes it all the sweeter."

That reminds me to say something I didn't put in my post. I'm much more interested in structural reasons why a term of John McCain might have been like a third term of George W. Bush than I am in personal reasons.

Jealousy, hate and so on are powerful motivators, but they're not the best starting points for thinking about the future.

If there's one good thing about the post defeat Republican Party brawl it's that so much of it is forward-looking. So let me say something forward-looking.

If I'm right in the root post of this thread, then the McCain candidacy was a dead end for the party. It was movement, in that on policy John McCain lurched to the center. (For one thing, he cared about global warming, and George W. Bush's next major address on that topic will be his first.) But apart from any policy mistakes it was doomed by legacy personnel and bad habits of personnel management.

To build a good future, the Republican Party needs at least:
* New, young faces, lots of them. Preferably military veterans, and not just candidates but staff.
* The political equivalent of courts martial for disloyal staffers. The bad habits of the Bush years have to be brought dramatically to a halt.
* Radical reorganization to build a genuinely 21st century party. Here is what I mean by that: (link).
* Restoration of the party's principles, and some updating. (Ronald Reagan was an effective American President, but you can't just do what he did, because for one thing the Soviet Union is no longer there, and for another militant Islam has arrived and requires a response.)
* Building a mass movement with leadership that should be charismatic but must be clear, simple, consistent and credible in expression.

Conservatism needs to be calm and practical, not twitchy and frenetic. But it still has to say where it stands in plain language, and the lives and habits of the people representing it have to be consistent with the stories they are telling about what they mean to do and why. It won't be possible to rebuild conservatism on the basis of slippery political insider talk or "Senate shorthand" that leaves potential recruits wondering with (all too often justified) suspicion: What does he (or she) really mean by that?

You need fresh faces who demonstrate practical efficiency in government and both talk the talk and walk the walk on values. Only people like that will be believed enough to get people put their hands in their pockets to the tune of a billion dollars per presidential election. And that's what it takes, now.

#19 from Demosophist:

"In spite of the fact that I like Palin, I think we'd better look elsewhere for a candidate in 2012."

Do you think it plausible that a McCain presidency could have wound up looking like a third term of George W. Bush?

If so, isn't that a failure to evolve? (Even though the intent to move on was certainly there.)

If so, what do you think a successfully evolved Republican Party would look like?

What kinds of presidential and vice-presidential candidates would correspond to that?

In this thread, of course the first question is the main one. But if you want to outline in reasonably concise, clear and neutral language what practical lessons the Republican Party should draw from the kind of presidency it would have had if the McCain / Palin ticked had won, go ahead.

I don't think McCain hates Palin, if he does, for personal reasons as suggested. If he hates her, and doesn't want her to be the face of the Republican party of the future, it's for reasons of ideology.

Somewhat disguised by the fact that, these days, pretty much all Republicans at least say that they're 'conservatives', the Palin pick was an exercise in ticket balancing. He picked her, had to pick her, because they disagree on the issues. Not because they agreed. Because he needed somebody to mend the break between him and the party base, a break he was responsible for, and could not bring himself to personally fix by abandoning his maverick principles of campaign censorship and massive illegal immigration.

For her to end up as the future of the GOP as a result of his losing campaign would mean he'd lost TWICE. The reason he's trying to destroy her is as simple as that.

Re: #22 from Brett Bellmore:

I get it. But, your guess as to John McCain's motives doesn't produce a different picture of what a McCain presidency would have looked like.

Sarah Palin couldn't be less like Dick Cheney (except that for different reasons they are both acceptable to many hard right conservatives). But whether you're spending a lot of time in nondisclosed locations because the President envies your popularity in the party, or because he doesn't like your ideology, or just because you're the kind of guy that likes spending his time in nondisclosed secure locations, once you're sent off to a bunker where you communicate with nobody, the effect is the same.

There would still have been no generational renewal, and no influx of young talent to sweep away the deadwood of the Bush era.

That referencr doesn't make any sense. The Republicans have held the White House; more like the Post Civil War era GOP; than the sole democrats.Obama is more like Cleveland in 1884,or 1892; walking into a maestrom. McCain is more like Blaine, the old retread of the Stalwarts. Palin represents the future populists, somewhat like TR. Where Logan fits into this I'll never know.

How well does John McCain reflect conservative sentiment online? Here is some evidence: Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right (2008 Edition) (link). John McCain is the easy winner with 25 votes.

A President John McCain would have been in a very poor position to get his message out through a hostile mainstream liberal media. He would also have been in a poor position to make his case through the blogsphere, which is now also heavily liberal. And even in the right wing blogsphere, as the least liked person on the right by a long way, he would have been in a bad position to get his message out, assuming a) he came up with one, and b) he thought of using the blogsphere. (I've said on a number of occasions before the election that John McCain is too old; and his poor online outreach reflects that.)

This would not have been a change from the George W. Bush White House, which has ceased to exist as an influential communicator.

Again the likely picture is: one lonely man in the Oval Office, with no tools except the formal powers of his position.

real agenda of putting corporate interest first. Witness the current financial meltdown.

If I'm not mistaken, Democrats as well as Republicans refused to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush himself, along with John McCain, called for more regulation of the two FMs years ago. Barney Frank and other Democrats scotched it. By the way, I believe Barrack Obama was one of the largest recipients of FM money in the Senate.

You might want to at least engage people's pocketbook interests.

My gorge continues to rise at this kind of "What's the Matter with Kansas" bs. It's bs on two counts:

1) Marx to the contrary notwithstanding, economic interests are not the only interests it's possible for human beings to have.

2) Cultural issues are, among other things, economic issues. Are you going to deny that the cultural implosion of the last forty years (drugs, crime, illegitimacy, breakdown of the family, children exposed to a constant barrage of sexual material) has had economic consequences?

David:

Conservatism needs to be calm and practical, not twitchy and frenetic.... You need fresh faces who demonstrate practical efficiency in government and both talk the talk and walk the walk on values.

Well, in my experience those two requirements are a little inconsistent. The young and "fresh faced" are far less likely to remain calm, and tend to feed rather than retard flames. It's not that I don't think those fresh faces aren't assets, but the reaction chamber needs some experienced and reputation-based control rods.

I'd also say that new ideas are probably more important than young faces. I heard Dick Armey the other day on CNN making the basic laissez faire argument that we should just let industries in trouble sink beneath the waves, as a kind of organizational Darwinism. This isn't a very canny thing to emphasize while people are scared to death of losing their livelihood. It's just possible that his "devil-take-the-hindmost" faction will be the one that's selected against.

I currently don't see anyone in whom I'd place a lot of faith. Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, and Crist are fine with me... but I don't know much about them.

I also think there's bound to be a realignment on foreign policy now that the Democrats have to stop being teenagers and shoulder some responsibility. I'd say there's a natural correspondence between some conservatives and parts of the multicultural left, since both tend toward illiberalism and isolationism. On the other hand there's a genuinely liberal wing of the Democratic Party that's been all-but invisible in recent years, and they may re-emerge with some agenda common to liberal Republicans. (I don't mean "liberal" in the social democrat sense, but in the classical sense, of course.) Seems to me there are only two ways to go in foreign policy: 1. expand the liberal democratic franchise, even by force if necessary; or 2. isolationism.

Ultimately I agree with Lincoln. We'll end up either all one thing or all the other. I don't see the isolationists, whether paleocon or multiculti, winning this in the long term... even though they look good at the moment.

David:

I guess I forgot to respond to the other part of your question, about whether a McCain administration would ultimately be like the Bush administration, at least in terms of the way they deal with personnel. I think a McCain administration would be a lot more erratic than the Bush administration, and inherently less consistent. The Bushies were strong on strategy, and weak on tactics. McCain might have been just the opposite... waivering on strategy, but sticking to the same OODA Loop tactical paradigm. But perhaps our opponents would have served us up a compelling strategic objective, allowing the tactics to remain focused. As for the role of personal loyalty, McCain would have been less successful than Bush. But Americans don't tend to be loyal to persons or personalities anyway. It's not our strongest trait. It would have been no fun to work in a McCain administration... because he'd be liable to hit the ejector seat button and send you flying by the seat of your pants rather unexpectedly.

Ugh... I guess what I'm saying is that if we faced a significant foreign policy challenge McCain might have done better than Bush... but the continuity would depend on the severity of the challenge, not on personal loyalties to McCain.

I don't think the question is whether or not a McCain administration would have been like Bushes. The question is whether it would have been more succesful.

I think the answer to that is is no, because as his campaign showed, McCain's people lacked intellectual vigour and had no Philospical base on which a successful administration needs to be built.

Simply put it was vacuous and Palin was the perfect symblol of this vacuity.

I don't think the question is whether or not a McCain administration would have been like Bushes. The question is whether it would have been more successful.

I think the answer to that is is no, because as his campaign showed, McCain's people lacked intellectual vigour and had no philosopical base on which a successful administration needs to be built.

Simply put it was vacuous and Palin was the perfect symbol of this vacuity.

Frankly, I think the elephant in the living room is that an Obama presidency is going to end up looking like a third term of George Bush. I'm not able to think of alot of things Obama is going to do that I would trust George Bush not to do, or alot of things I'd trush Obama to do that I would trust George Bush not to do. There are of course a few issues, but I think that on those issues Obama is going to find himself sufficiently to the left of the people that voted for him that he'll have no more success than Clinton did trying to push a leftist agenda from 1992-1994 or that Bush had pushing right leaning legislation during his second term. Anyone remember universal health care? Anyone remember privatized social security?

The fact is that to the extent that you could say that McCain had the same platform as Bush, you could also say that Obama has the same platform as Bush. The fundamental reality here is that Obama is not going to shift the ship estate all that violently from its present course (whether it needs it or not) and I'm not sure that even with a Democratic majority he would find the support for it.

I would like to also point out that McCain polled among conservatives as one of there least like persons before he one the nomination. McCain was never a very likable candidate. He couldn't beat Bush for crying out loud in either charisma or competancy. He's a loudmouth whose national name recognition is solely do to the fact that the press loved to book him because he could always be counted on to trash talk the GOP. His judgement has always been in question, and he got a really nasty temper. I have no doubt of his courage, but he doesn't have any of the other qualities of good leadership.

I agree with the basic claim that this election was decided largely by the fact that conservatives weren't really enthusiatic about any of their candidates and the liberals were enthusiastic about theirs. McCain got the nomination for reasons similar to why Kerry won the nomination in 2004 - the base resigned themselves to making the best of a bad situation. It's hard to sell the middle on your man, if you don't believe in him yourself.

Personally, I'm going to buck the trend and claim I think that the conservative movement looks to me like its in pretty good shape. All this furor over a marginal victory reminds me of the right-blogosphere trumpeting how 2004 marked the deathblow to the democratic party and that we were entering into a new permenent Republican majority. The conservative movement has suffered badly since the loss of Reagan for two reasons: a lack of strong charismatic champion to rally behind, and a general subversion from the left wing of the party. Beginning with the first Bush presidency, the party leadership has swung to the left. By the time 2000 rolled around, there were simply no prominent conservative voices in the leadership of the party: Huckabee, Gullianni, the Bush family, McCain, Swartzeneggar, and most anyone else you can name is from the left leaning big government 'compassionate conservative' branch of the GOP formerly represented by figures like Rockefeller and Nixon. It's ok in small doses, but its always been clear that Goldwater/Reagan is the future of the movement - especially when the GOP took control of Congress riding that intellectual wave with 'the contract with America'.

The 1994 victory for the conservative movement was also its high point. In 1996, the party leadership attempted to purge that party of its younger more radical right-wing membership - pulling away funds and otherwise refusing to support candidates of anyone percieved as rocking the boat. It's been pretty successful in that regard. The result left the Congress without alot of new young blood in the GOP, which in turn has resulted in the dearth of leadership now. Tom Coburn is one of the last surviving veterans of that period.

However, the GOP has ALOT of talented, charismatic, very popular young governors out there right now. They don't have the maturity or the seasoning to really run for national office yet (I was very disappointed to see Palin get on the ticket for this reason), but in 2008 or 2012 I think we are going to have a pretty unbeatable field with candidates Jindal, Palin, and Sanford. And finally, for the first time since 1994 we might be able to right the party.

...as his campaign showed, McCain's people lacked intellectual vigour and had no Philospical base on which a successful administration needs to be built.

Boyd's (essentially tactical) concept is presented as "strategic," but that assumes a coherent objective. In a fighter aircraft contest there is always a clear objective or end state, one where you end up on the enemy's tail and can shoot him down. In the world of policy that's not always so clear, so the OODA Loop isn't necessarily a strategic orientation. But as far as ideological clarity goes, you don't need all that much. The enemy can provide the coherence, and in most cases are foolish enough to do so. Moreover, I'm still not sure what the imperative of "Liberalism 3.x" would look like. I think we're still attempting to cope with Totalitarianism 3.x by fine-tuning Liberalism 2.x, and the next version will only emerge under severe stress. A couple of characteristics of such an innovation will include a high tolerance for uncertainty, and also some way to include Lockean individualism within a collective consensus. I tend to pay attention to history, but not as the pristine model for the future. I like Niall Ferguson because he seems to strike a coherent balance between historical perspective and revisionism.

Both McCain and Obama have reputations for "out of the box" strategy, although McCain's history provides more certainty about his orientation would be. (Heavy on tactics.) For all I know Obama will be stultifyingly conventional, both in terms of tactics and strategy. I don't see any reason to attribute innovation to him, but who knows?

While it is too early to tell for sure, I'm beginning to think more and more that Obama is a continuation of Bush.

From John Schwenkler

So congratulations, America. Our long national nightmare is over, and now we’ve got a president-elect who apparently goes in for spying on his citizens, torturing his enemies, expanding the military, violating the sovereignty of our allies, threatening to attack Iran, providing effectively unconditional support to Israel, keeping massive residual forces in Iraq well beyond the date of our “withdrawal”, bailing out banks and automakers alike, massively shrinking the tax base while increasing federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, and now sticking with the kinds of agricultural policies that degrade the environment, encourage bad eating habits, and contribute to the global hunger crisis. But don’t worry - I hear he’s a sharp guy with a really calm temperament, which of course is all that really matters. Here’s to change we can believe in!

Links to the claims, are at the site linked to.

Yay! Whoopee! Or, as John McCain would say, "that's not change we can believe in".

On the other hand, things that are most effective to HELP real people, in their economic situations - job creation program, fixing the infrastructure of the U.S., green jobs, and then health care available to all - looks like Obama isn't backing down on those.

So maybe he's deciding to spend political capital on the biggest priorities, not on the "pet peeves" that matter so much to us liberals.

I see now why Obama is the candidate of Armed Liberal.

We'll see - it still is disappointing.

Obama is more like Cleveland in 1884,or 1892; walking into a maestrom. McCain is more like Blaine, the old retread of the Stalwarts. Palin represents the future populists, somewhat like TR. Where Logan fits into this I'll never know.

I'd agree with most of that. That was sort of my point. Except that I'm not entirely sure how closely Palin really corresponds to TR, besides the fact that she wears specs and hunts moose. Logan represents a temporary defeat of a powerful political force: veterans. By the late 1880s their comeback was in full force, and they virtually determined the course of politics. It's odd that most people have never heard of the G.A.R.. Likewise, I think the potential for veterans organizations is huge, but as yet unrealized. To a certain extent McCain is representative of Logan's unrealized potential. And by the time that potential was realized, Logan was dead. Otherwise we might be more familiar with the fellow.

I tend to agree that a McCain administration would have had strong similarities to Bush's. For one reason, their politics were broadly similar, from their take on the war and military to the size and role of government. They both represented the statist end of the Republican spectrum.

The second reason is that a McCain administration would have drawn from the same pool of political professionals of various sorts who staffed the two Bush administrations. The composition of his campaign staff makes that obvious. The president doesn't get to do that much hands on, and largely works through delegation and influence. If you're got largely the same people, and largely the same substance (disregarding the style issues), you're likely to have similar behaviors emerge, even if McCain would have been more likely to break some heads when things misfired.

The first reason is no surprise at all, but the second bears some thought. There's a paradox when a party that claims to believe in minimizing the size and role of government comes into power. Simply by its accession to power, it will start to attract rent seekers and careerists. Whose influence may grow over time as those who weren't really involved because they wanted to be in government drift back to their 'normal' occupations. And who then proceed to take measures to increase their own influence and permanence. Sound familiar?

The good news is that that type will now drift towards the party that has goodies to hand out. Some recent examples may come to mind. Leaving those of us who still believe in minimal government to consider how not to screw it up next time. (P. J. O'Rourke's rant is both thought provoking and cathartic in that regard.)

Nope definitely post party.
The radical fringe of America has operated in both parties and have indeed switched places periodically. No one African American had much to do w/ the Democratic party until the Great Depression because of its rabidly anti African American positions. Only after LBJ signed into law the Civil Rights legislation did Southern Whites turn against the Democratic party. Like eveyone else we vote are interests. Racism isn't in our interest.

should read "...like everyone else we vote our interests..."

Robert M: OK, so help me out here: what does your expression "a post party purge" mean in this context? A purge in a world where there are no political parties? A purge after a celebration? Or what?

I think it is fairly likely that McCain's Administration would have been qualitatively similar to Bush's Administration. (FWIW, I think Bush 43 would have been judged by history to be a better Bush than McCain, but hey....)

My problem is I think we'll look back on Bush 43 as the Good Old Days in about 10 years. And I'm worried a large part of that will be on Obama's shoulders.

As I've said before, I'm in the uncomfortable position of hoping like hell that I'm wrong.

Leaving those of us who still believe in minimal government to consider how not to screw it up next time.

Unfortunately, not screwing it up next time requires dealing with a rather stubborn problem: The GOP's entrenched, non-conservative leadership. Which, as became evident in the '95 budget standoff's failure, amounts to a self-perpetuating clique of professional politicians, many in 'safe' seats, who are short on principles, (Where they don't actually agree with Democrats, such as on illegal immigration.) and way too interested in rent seeking to rock the boat.

Prying them loose has to be the first task, and it's regrettably the hardest, too. It might actually be easier to scrap the GOP and start over again, if it weren't for all those election laws the GOP and Democrats collaborated on to foreclose the third party option.

She's a reformist anti-corruption populist; she upset the apple cart
in Alaska, challenged the Stevens machine; send Ruedrich and Co, to jail. Like TR, they thought she would basically be cipher in the VP; would have made for some interesting cabinet meetings. McCain was closer to Blaine in temperament, but McKinley in background. She's been certainly right about the absurdity of the bailout. She's personally socially
conservative, but that hasn't gotten in the way of actually doing things. She actually reversed
the gay marriage prohibition;
sought out funding for special needs before she found out about her circumstances. She actually does care and know about the things WOC has been speaking about
for the last 7 years; islamist warfare and more really neo-Czarist encroachment in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The winning party has been either AWOL or remarkably obtuse on the matter; 'understanding terrorist grievance' offering Iran 200 million.

[Sarah Palin] been certainly right about the absurdity of the bailout.

She actually does care and know about the things WOC has been speaking about for the last 7 years, islamist warfare and more really neo-Czarist encroachment in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

I'll try not to get too off point here. I'm just going to ask you to provide examples? Preferably, answers where she demonstrates a solid understanding of the forces at work in the world. For example of what I mean see the latest wolf Blitzer interview.

(13 min mark: paraphrased)
SP: We governors have great ideas.
WB: Oh, great! what are they?
SP: Oh, I don't have anything specific....

And this is the problem with the republican party (in general) right now. The republican presidential campaign did not define what they wanted to do and how they were going to do it. In times of crisis, you need to show you're ready to get started ASAP. Palin has not demonstrated this to me, and if I were a republican, I would not lean on someone until they demonstrated this to me.

Finally something hypocricyrules and I agree on. Let me take that a bit further.

"On the other hand, things that are most effective to HELP real people, in their economic situations - job creation program, fixing the infrastructure of the U.S., green jobs, and then health care available to all - looks like Obama isn't backing down on those."

Well, hypocricyrules, I hate to tell you this but all of that is a continuation of the Bush ideology as well. It may be tweaked here and there and couched in different terms to appeal to a different base, but the fundamental ideology behind both is exactly the same - that government exists to help people. Job creation? How many economic stimulation packages did Bush help push through a willing Congress? I lost track, but you certainly can't fault Bush for not thinking that job creation is the job of government. Fixing the infrastructure of the U.S.? Have you actually bothered to look just how big the increase in domestic spending was during the Bush years? No president has ever overseen such large across the board spending increases. Health care? Anyone here remember the prescription drug medicare program Bush pushed through congress over the wishes of his own party and his base?

Obama's policies across the board are largely continuations of Bush's policies with very little inovation. The only difference is that Obama is coming in as a vigorous candidate, and Bush was an unpopular lame duck, but in terms of the things that they want to accomplish they aren't that different. In terms of the things that they actually will accomplish, Obama is probably equivalent to a third term of Bush if we could assume Bush still had political capital to spend.

The only real shift in policy I expect will be on embryonic stem cell research, because fetal rights is one of the few areas that Bush and Obama really starkly disagree. In terms of domestic programs in general, Obama basically promised not merely 'more of the same', but 'much more of the same'. In practical terms he disagrees with Bush only in that he promised much more spending than the President who has already overseen the largest increases and the fastest increases in federal domestic spending in US history.

#40 from Brett Bellmore:

"Unfortunately, not screwing it up next time requires dealing with a rather stubborn problem: The GOP's entrenched, non-conservative leadership."

Indeed.

The Republican establishment protects itself (link)

What bothers me most about the Chairman's race is that Boehner and the WHITE HOUSE (i.e., Barry Jackson, the guy who replaced Karl Rove last year) are running the campaign to elect Sessions as NRCC Chair.

Boehner, who refuses to accept any responsibility for losing more than 50 - FIFTY - House seats between 2006 to 2008, wants his own guy at the NRCC. So he's making phone calls to Members and putting the heat on them to vote for Sessions. And his partner in all of this is Jackson, who still has the weight of the White House behind him.

How exactly is this party going to move forward if everyone in leadership is hand-picked by Boehner and the Bush White House? How is that progress?

There won't be one single person in leadership who is independent of Boehner. Aside from the NRCC chairman's race, none of the seats is being contested. Boehner cleared the field and selected his own people.

And what will this yield? What should we expect from a leadership team hand picked by the same people who, as noted in today's Examiner piece, think so little of Republicans and our freedoms that they would allow the FCC to regulate the airwaves with community activists (what's to stop ACORN members will sit on the advisory boards)?

I'm at my wit's end.

With good reason.

[EW, you're still banned. --NM]

Let me tell you another way that Obama is going to be a continuation of Bush - approval numbers.

I'll bet a beer (redeemable whenever you are in town) that Obama's approval ratings drop to 40% or lower within his first six months in office.

Again, I don't blame you for voting for Obama - afterall he was running against McCain - but if you really thought you were getting a prize package instead of a booby prize I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you.

Times like these, I'm glad 'my side' lost. That is, the side I'm percieved as being on which isn't really my side because its not actually on my side and I'm not on theres, lost, which is good because I never supported them anyway and better because I won't be blamed as part of the collateral damage from the fallout of a McCain Presidency and better yet because I get to set back and watch the goofball that was elected wreck havoc with the credibility of 'your side'.

The only loser is going to be America and the American people, which sucks, but since we were going to lose no matter which of these two clowns got elected, I figure that its best that the clown that was elected doesn't carry my 'brand name'.

I'm going to devote my political activities over the next 4 years to campaigning for conservative Republican leadership. I don't feel the need to protest Obama. You'll be too busy doing that yourselves. I don't envy you the headaches he's going to cause you.

"But they didn't need to say anything false about Bush, he gives anybody enough thing say that are true!"

Not that that ever stopped them from making stuff up.

Although, to be fair, I fully expect the right to act in the same manner toward Obama. For that matter, they already have.

"How many economic stimulation packages did Bush help push through a willing Congress?"

Economic stimulation plans are different from job creation plans. For Bush, usually economic stimulation means tax cuts.

While these can help stimulate the economy, these also aren't directed to real needs like infrastructure.

Both sides seem to want to think it was something to do with campaign strategies, or ideology, or platforms, or quality of candidates, or some other qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans that accounted for the outcome. That makes for more entertaining discussions, but the polls indicate the election was pretty simple: McCain and Obama were essentially tied up until late September, when the financial crisis broke. The polling on voting priorities show it was simply another "its the economy, stupid" election, and in these, when times are good the incumbent party gets rewarded, when they're not they get punished. The voters perceived the GOP as the party in charge, and went for the other guys. This wasn't some great sea-change in what the country believes, it was just circumstances beyond the candidates' control shifting a certain way around election time.

I think there are three big reasons why Barack Obama and Joe Biden won.
1. There's an underlying decline of whites in America.
2. Barack Obama is a political genius who invented a new and superior way of running for the presidency. It gave him many advantages compared to his opponent, including practically unlimited funds.
3. "It's the economy, stupid."

None of these have much to do with how John McCain would have exercised power had he won. My concern isn't with why John McCain and Sarah Palin lost the election, but with how John McCain would have governed. So I don't care about the "why?" of the election's result (at least in this thread).

If he had won, I think John McCain would have represented four more years of the failed practices of George W. Bush regarding appointments. The Bushies would have tried to cling to power, and they were doing so with success. They would have served John McCain as badly as or worse than they served George W. Bush.

The evidence of the epic fail Palin rollout followed by the unpunished anti-Palin whispering campaign suggests that John McCain's staff would have been ineffective, it would have been disloyal, and it would have leaked like a colander. There would have been weekly reports of John McCain's bad temper and frustration.

I don't see how John McCain could have used the bully pulpit to support foreign policy initiatives, or how he could have rallied any support for his preferred judges.

The only area I can see where he could take the initiative would be in "comprehensive immigration reform". That is a continuation of a failed George W. Bush policy.

When the fox couldn't get high enough to get at the grapes, he decided they were sour. But sometimes grapes out of reach really are sour. The presidency of John McCain turned out to be out of reach. The evidence from the disloyal and undignified way his staff has acted and how John McCain has shamefully not acted after the election is that America did not miss out on a great presidency.

I think David Broder had the right of it here , that Obama's strengths are in analysis and policy creation, while McCain's are in negotiation and process experience. In hypothesizing about how McCain would have done, I think you're not taking into account how McCain's knowledge of the ins-and-outs of Washington and his experience in putting bipartisan deals together would have served him well in working with a hostile Congress.

The back-and-forth in the GOP we're seeing after McCain's defeat is par for the course, and isn't something we can extrapolate anything really significant about McCain's ability as an administrator from. Would Obama's campaign staff have stayed solidly unified and quiet in the face of defeat? Doubtful; its the nature of the political business to deflect and spin the blame away to others, once the cause is lost. Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan.

#51 from tagryn:

"The back-and-forth in the GOP we're seeing after McCain's defeat is par for the course, and isn't something we can extrapolate anything really significant about McCain's ability as an administrator from."

My opinion is the opposite: this free run for backstabbers is astounding and a revelation about John McCain's leadership ability, or lack of it.

What's gone on is the sort of behavior that, if left unpunished, degrades any organization that relies on discretion and solidarity. If it's not put down it means more of the same in the future and less ability for leaders to trust their subordinates - which they have to, to get things done. That is contrary to the public interest, and it is contrary to the interest of a party that, in a sense, is selling good government to the public.

Consequently, a leader has to try to put it down. If he doesn't make the attempt, he's a wimp, he's not up to the job.

I think if John McCain had set his face against this, he could have put a stop to it. But even if he had failed, everybody could have understood what he was doing and why. By making the attempt, he would have been doing what strong party leaders have to do to enforce party solidarity.

As it is: oh my gosh what a weak leader could have wound up in the White House if not for the financial crisis! Sarah Palin was dragging his weak carcass towards the finish line in that election, before the economy started to go into spasm, and if he had won it's now obvious he would have cooperated in her political assassination or had her locked out of sight like an idiot; and he would then have been totally incapable of running the White House himself.

It would have been four more years of lame duck leadership and likely of self-interested, honorless and inept Bush staffers running amok. John McCain would have added nothing but temper tantrums when things went contrary to his wishes, which they would have, constantly.

It seems to be a mistake to select presidential candidates without any executive experience. If they've never done it, you don't know - they may not even know the basic, ordinary things about leading a political party that you would assume everybody would know. And maybe they don't have the temperament to learn.

By making the attempt, he would have been doing what strong party leaders have to do to enforce party solidarity.

Historically, losing candidates have had a much weaker position immediately after their loss than when they were running; its the phenomena of you-just-lost-the-big-one-why-should-we-listen-to-you? Parties tend to look forward, not backward, for leadership. Again, McCain's withdrawing from the inter-GOP squabbles is normal behavior for a candidate after a Presidential run loss, and doesn't inform speculation about how he would have governed.

John McCain would have added nothing but temper tantrums when things went contrary to his wishes, which they would have, constantly.

A conclusion which runs contrary to his strong record of working with people who he disagreed with. He admitted himself that he has a temper, but if his style was "nothing but temper tantrums" he would not have had his reputation as a bipartisan coalition builder, something even his opponents admitted was one of his strengths.

On your last point: Bush had executive experience, as governor of Texas for six years. Would you say that worked out well? Before him, Clinton had experience as governor of Arkansas, but proved not up to the task on foreign policy once he assumed POTUS. You just never really can know what a particular President's Achilles' heel will be until they're already in the job, in part because the challenges he faces while in office often change from the ones he was elected to handle; for example, 9-11 altered the entire tenor of the Bush administration, and another major terrorist attack on the US would shift the focus from the domestic scene which Obama was primarily elected to resolve, to foreign policy issues which were largely downplayed during the election.

None of these have much to do with how John McCain would have exercised power had he won. My concern isn't with why John McCain and Sarah Palin lost the election, but with how John McCain would have governed. So I don't care about the "why?" of the election's result (at least in this thread).

Which is itself interesting, given your disdain for the McCain advisors who've gone back channel to trash Palin. Why are you so interested in hypothetical dishing about a McCain presidency that will never happen? It seems pointless, but I assume there's a motivation in here somewhere.

As I have said as the Republican party is currently constituted its factions/wings are at odds w/ each other. The Christian right/social issue conservatives are at odds w/ the Yankees-which were electively purged in the last election and are at odds w/ the Cowboy capitalists of the West.

My great hope is these factions will cut each others throats leading to a resurgence of the Yankees. The Cowboys just shot their wad w/ Phil Gramm amendment to a budget bill in the middle of the night(the results of which are not over and hopefully will not lead to a world wide depression; no credit means no economic activity).

The Yankees believe in more government involvement in the economy than the cowboys do. For better or worse over the next decade it is my hope that many things are standardized for the sake of the economy. Take for example the building of light rail transportation for cities/exurbs. We can't have everyone have a different gauge and standards for cars and guidance systems. The cost become prohibitive. The electric grid needs to be rationalized and connected so that more can be sent from one region to another(you may recall a few years ago San Fran had extremely high costs yet LA had an abundance a situation that came about because of deregulation).

The Christian social right needs to be purged. There intolerance is to much for me. They remind me very much of the Islamist fascists whom wish to rule the world. They are constantly willing to yell FIRE in the threatre something the law does not allow.

I will not be having a party w/ the destruction of the Republican Party. Only half the work will have been done. The Democratic Party needs to be destroyed as well. The perhaps we will see the return of a true centrist party.

Re: #54 from Tim Oren: I thought I covered that in my comments number 20 and 21.

Obviously there's more to say in that direction. But that if you agree that a McCain presidency (which, yes, will never happen) would have been like four more years of lame duck President Bush (before voters turned out the Republican executive in 2012), then it matters why, structurally, the party was not up to governing. This is stuff that has to be put right if the party is to govern usefully in future.

That is pointless if you are sufficiently resigned to what happened that you just don't think it matters any more what conservatives think and do in America. Which is the state of play.

But I hadn't processed things to that point when I made this post. The McCain ad "Original Mavericks" - which represented John McCain and Sarah Palin as real reformers - looked good to me. Therefore, when it turned out, as I see it, that there never was such an option on offer, and that John McCain would not have been up to governing much less reforming, that struck me as news deserving of some thought.

"The evidence from the disloyal and undignified way his staff has acted and how John McCain has shamefully not acted after the election is that America did not miss out on a great presidency."

No surprise there. Then again, the behavior of the losing candidate for the last 2 elections has confirmed the same thing; and again, no one should have been suprised.

"It seems to be a mistake to select presidential candidates without any executive experience."

Indeed. Frankly, I think that the United States would benifit if Senators were barred from ever serving as President. No one that was on either ticket struck me as qualified, and the fact that the most qualified appeared to be a young, politically unseasoned, ex-beauty queen, with no more than 2 years holding the office of governor in a comparitively unpopulated largely rural state (albiet one with unique challenges) strikes me as an enditement of the entire nominating process.

Re: #57 from Celebrim: We are on the same page.

I agree that Sarah Palin was the best qualified of the candidates, and even so, too raw to be an ideal choice. That many other candidates, such as John Edwards, have been less qualified only shows that they too were not ready for the job.

The process that gave America these candidates is flawed. I don't know what the proper reform would be, but something had better change.

I think the idea of barring Senators from running for President would be a good one. If it can't be made binding on both parties, at least the Republican Party should adopt this as a rule. Not only would it produce better candidates for the top executive office, it could make the Senate run better. George W. Bush's presidency could have been more successful if Bill Frist and John McCain had had their minds on their jobs instead of on getting George W. Bush's job.

After Obama screws everything up, Republicans will be in better shape. People will long for the stability, prosperity, and sheer competence of George W. Bush.

No, I'm not being facetious. Obama is even WORSE than GWB in every managerial respect. His staff is already fighting, hard-left lunatics vs. the corrupt cronies. Remember, Obama brings both Rezko corruption and Wright-Farrakhan-Ayers-Khalidi to his Administration. Half his backers want Bill Ayers death camps opening for real this time, the others are on the make and the take.

How is Obama and his team going to handle further economic meltdown? Iran nuking Israel out of existence in a surprise attack? Pakistan falling to the Taliban and AQ and halting our supply of Afghanistan, making Afghanistan into the combination of Wake Island, the Alamo, and Chosin Reservoir with no succor possible? Or Russia rolling into Eastern Europe (because he can)? Or China seizing the day and Taiwan? Or a Western city being nuked by AQ? Nukes provided by Pakistan, or Iran, or North Korea, or who knows? Or Russia staging nuclear missiles in Cuba and Venezuela, as they've hinted they might?

We will long for the sheer competence of Bush.

McCain would have been bad, but not that bad. At the worst we are talking about losses of 6-10 million Americans because Obama was not strong and scary enough to deter attacks from people who despise weakness and fear very little (except Bush). Kumbayah, corrupt incompetence, and Ayers-Wright don't make any one scared of Obama, indeed our adversaries suspect he might back an attack on the US given his choice of Pastor for 20 years, and the widespread belief among Muslims abroad (and most at home) that Obama is a secret Muslim who hates Whites and America just like they do. Obama as President paints a target on NYC and is a green - go light for any attack. His coalition is inherently unable to project power to deter attack.

As for the substance of Mr. Blue's remarks on the structural weakness of Republicans?

As Whites decline in relative numbers, they are likely to become more identity-racially oriented, demand and end to Affirmative Action (pain is greater), and end to immigration, particularly the Mexican kind, legal or not, and become far less tolerant of Black complaints given a Black President. Also as the recession drags on and on, Whites are not going to care if they are called racist by Blacks, Hispanics, or the Media -- they will want delivery of Government Goodies to THEM FIRST ala FDR (who deported Mexicans by the truckload and assisted the AFL to exclude Blacks from Labor Unions). Dems are conclusively the Gay, Black, and Hispanic Party in explicit opposition to Whites.

Obama won on the strength of Single White Women, who make up the majority of White Women and voted for him 70% to 29% (McCain). What Single women want: lots of PC, welfare spending, structural weakness in defense and policing, is incompatible with the needs of what Single Men want (more money in their pocket to win women, opportunity to make a mark). Single Women only need to look pretty to "win" in the mating market, Single Men need status, power, wealth, and accomplishment, so they cannot really be held by Obama and Dems long-term because it would entail an opportunity society and growing economy, not a stasis driven one that Single Women prefer.

Single women also drive the Culture Wars, backing the Gay/Black/Hispanic alliance against Straight White Men (who are the enemy of Dems). Single Men would like to be the Alpha Winners like Gavin Newsome, or Tony Villaraigosa, or Eliot Spitzer, or John Edwards, or Barack Hussein Obama, but they lack the power, coolness, ethnicity, etc. to do so and realistically always will.

This makes the traditional culture wars a winner for Reps, as long as they make it a priority to appeal to Single Men, particularly in hard times. Pro-family (and opportunity of their own) and anti-Gay Marriage (where marriage is just an expensive, "fabulous" party two people throw each other and then continue having sex with other people). Prop 8 WON, and Florida's version won even bigger.

Married Women of course vote Republican but are an endangered species, which itself suggests that Single Men are there for the picking. Since the Democratic Party actively discriminates against Straight White Men, this is an easy sell. Particularly when Obama/Dems put Affirmative Action firing policies (Whites last hired, first fired) into place during the Recession. Yes Dems are that stupid.

Evangelicals and Cultural Conservatives are the base. Republicans need them. Yuppies will always vote status which means Democrat.

What needs to be done is develop a good, old-fashioned populist campaign, with Dems accurately painted, Atwater/Helms style, as the Party of Affirmative Action, discrimination against Whites, working to make Whites a minority (legally discriminated against minority too) in their own country.

Jessie Helms Hands Ads, plus Willie Horton. Blacks will vote Dem 98% anyway, so this has little costs. The Media will portray the merest criticism of "the One" as racism akin to the lynching of Emmitt Till, so that has little cost also. Given how the Media are mere shills for their own "Living God."

Tax rebates, lower electricity prices (explicitly making Obama/Dem "Green" politics a policy of screw the rate payer, get Yuppies and Big Shots rich and happy), and an expanding economy would be the way to go, along with explicit Nationalism that Dems and Obama are unable to match.

In short, run as Rudy did against the incompetence and racial preference Dinkins showed to rioting Blacks in the Crown Heights affair.

NYC had not elected a real Republican in ages. Yet Dinkins racial preferences, and incompetence, made Rudy a walk-over the second time he ran against Dinkins, even with the Media worshipping Dinkins.

Deval Patrick, the other Black guy Axelrod ran as the "hip cool, imaginary friend" of White Yuppies, has a 34% approval rating and has been weak and ineffective in MA. That's a state a Republican could pick up by running on an explicit White populist movement. After all, Dems are openly saying "So Long White Boy" in their articles, as is the Media.

Blacks and Hispanics always cooperate to vote against Whites and vote themselves preferential goodies and treatment. It's pure power/patronage politics, so play it as it lays and take advantage. Even as Whites decline, they still remain the largest group. Simply get all Single Men, Marrieds, Seniors, and Single women don't decide the election any more.

I agree that Sarah Palin was the best qualified of the candidates, and even so, too raw to be an ideal choice. [David Blue, #58]

Here's one of my concerns about Sarah Palin, that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere.

She is unquestionably a very popular governor for Alaska. However, a good deal of this is because Alaska is essentially a socialist state, handing out goodies to its citizens based on the sale of its natural resources, much like Venezuela.

Governor Palin increased the handout by about 60%, and eliminated the state gas tax. What's not to like? OK, so that's fine. She's blessed to be leading a small state rich in natural resources, so she gets to do things that, say, the governor of Michigan cannot. But this is like George Bush, son of a wealthy, politically-connected family who got into Yale as an alumni legacy, saying that people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

She doesn't seem to have thought about the difference between the situation Alaska is in, and the situation other states are in. A solution that works for Alaska won't work for Michigan. It would certainly help if she showed some evidence of awareness of that.

Part of my problem with an alternate timeline McCain presidency (let's say the financial crisis hits just after the election rather than just before it, and John McCain gets very, very lucky with where he gets his votes, so he picks up an electoral college majority) is that it wouldn't have mattered what Sarah Palin was aware of.

This team of true mavericks, both determined reformers with the track record to prove it, was not a team. What it was, was an ad. The reality was a cranky old guy who had no loyalty to his running mate and little ability to govern.

I feel like I just found out that the Republican Party ran a wax statue for office in this election. Sure, no harm is done because he didn't win. But that doesn't mean all is well.

They remind me very much of the Islamist fascists whom wish to rule the world.
Are you aware of any differences between Christians who vote Republican and al Qaeda? You don't seem to think there are any worth noting.

This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm honestly unsure whether you are able to differentiate between Christians who vote Republican and al Qaeda. I suspect it's like asking a dog to see colors.

bgates, the vast majority of Muslims don't go in for Semtex waistcoats and box cutters as fashion items either.

There is, unquestionably, a lunatic fringe of people who call themselves (incorrectly, IMHO) Christian and are quite prepared to use terror tactics in pursuit of their aims - such as bombing abortion clinics, cutting the brake lines of people working in them, and so on.

So: Yes, of course there is a difference between ultra-right evangelical "Christians" and al Qaeda. But that's the wrong question. The question is whether is a real difference between al Qaeda and the abortion-clinic bombers. And the answer is no.

The real difference, I suspect, between the religious Right in the USA and Islam is: Rather less of the former are prepared to support, by word and deed, the actions of the lunatics among them. It is a very interesting question whether, given the vast resources available to Islamic terrorist supporters, the American "evangelicals" would become just as fanatic and just as violent and troublesome. IMHO the answer is yes.

I know that I keep going back to this; but as he continually did, Heinlein was far-seeing in this as on many other subjects. "If This Goes On..."

The "Moral Majority" cannot, and will not, see that they are actually a minority. That's why they should not be given power, that's why hopefully they never will, and that's why America did not elect a geriatric zealot and a book-banning, creationist theocrat for President and VP.

It's a great pity that the other choices were an empty suit and a crooked lawyer. America ought to take a long hard look at itself, and find out why such dross was all that was available as choices for the highest of offices.

Fletcher, I defy you to find any mention of "the vast majority of Muslims" in my post. You're not accomplishing anything by mentioning them.

Yes, of course there is a difference between ultra-right evangelical "Christians" and al Qaeda.
Good for you for puzzling that out.

book-banning, creationist theocrat
- could you point to a book that was banned, or a moment's interference in science education, or a law enacted or enforced to conform the state to God's will? I don't think you can.

bgates, she did in fact try to get books banned from libraries. As for the rest; well, maybe it's because she didn't get the chance?

Ms. Palin wanted to get creationism into the curriculum as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution. I also think that creationism ought to be in school curricula - but as an example of a totally unscientific idea completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Unless you count a four-thousand-year-old book, written hundreds of years after the events in it by dozens of authors and mistranslated half a dozen times, as evidence that is. Which of course the lunatic fringe of the religious Right does.

I find it interesting that people who take the Bible as their guide to everyday living are so selective about it. If you're a real Bible-thumper, you should not eat shellfish or pork, and you should insist on burying your excrement outside the town you live in. In addition, I find that a book, in which calling bears to rip small children to pieces for being mildly cheeky is held up as an example of holiness, to be rather repugnant. Maybe you don't.

Sorry to be so OT, but geez Fletcher, you show the same shallow literalist understanding of religion that you criticize in fundamentalits. You sound like a 19th century village atheist, a middle-brow contrarian using a stereotyped semi-understanding of religion to prove his intellectual superiority to those so stupid, ignorant, superstitious, and/or "weak minded" (as that great theological thinker Jesse Ventura put it) as to actually believe that stuff. I'm sure, after all, that in a belief system that attracts morons like Augustine, Aquinas, Coleridge, TS Eliot, CS Lewis, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Alvin Plantinga, not to mention idiots like John Polkinghorne, Stephen Barr, and Francis Collins (two physicists and a biologist respectively) nobody has ever thought of the kind of stuff you bring up in #66.

Robert M.

People whose voting is influenced by their faith and who believe that cultural issues are fundamental--because if the culture disintegrates no other issues will matter--(usually, but not always the same people) are not going to go away. Yes, there are nutballs who do things like blow up abortion clinics, but they are a tiny minority who are roundly rejected by the vast majority of those you would describe as the "religious right." Before you engage in the kind of simplistic, ignorant stereotypes of religious voters and the profoundly idiotic comparison of them to Islamic terrorists you did in #55, you might want to take the time to actually get to know one or two of them.

Everybody: please drop this irrelevant side thread. Now. Thank you for your cooperation.

#60 from whiskey at 8:30 am on Nov 16, 2008

For the most part, you advocated the backward thinking solutions that just got our clocks cleaned. De-emphasize the evangelical and Cultural aspects of the party and form the base around fiscal responsibility and a vigorous pro-business stance.

Dump Rovian politics and forswear the unilateralist, empire building delusions of the Neo-Cons. Listen to what Jindal is saying if you will not listen to what the voters said so clearly in the election 2 weeks ago.

Your recipe is will not only lead to an even greater disaster for the party, it will split it.

By the way, as far as Palin is concerned. You might get an idea of how the rest of the Governors feel about her by the number of positions she recieved from them.

ZERO

Mr. Blue, if you maintain that a mention of America's religious Right is irrelevant then it's your privilege - it's at least partly your site, after all.

However, there appeared to be a subtext; "why did the GOP lose and how can they arrange it so they have a chance of winning?". A very good question, and an important one - because any nominally democratic country without any meaningful opposition becomes a dictatorship (possibly without the name, but in actuality) in very short order.

I submit that linking together two things that have very little to do with each other - economic libertarianism/conservatism and the religious/"moral" variety - is one of the reasons why they lost. I am quite sure that there are tens of millions of Americans who are economic conservatives but want nothing to do with the sort of gross intolerance represented by the lunatic fringe of the "Christian" (actually nothing of the sort) Right.

To put it another way; I don't live in your state, or even in your
country, but assume for the sake of argument that I do. What gives you the right to determine whether I am allowed to look at pictures of (perfectly normal and legal) biological activity, to buy and use equipment connected with the recreational side of such activity, or to consume alcohol? What gives you the right to determine my domestic arrangements? And if I were a woman, what gives you the right to tell me what to do with my own body?

There are people in America (and in many other places, to be fair) who think that they have such a right because of their choice of Sunday leisure activity. They should be resisted. And the American people did resist them, at the last election - successfully.

The Jesusland meme persists because it has more than a grain of truth. And that is a large part of the reason why the GOP lost.

To put it another way; I don't live in your state, or even in your
country, but assume for the sake of argument that I do. What gives you the right to determine whether I am allowed to look at pictures of...

I'm being amused by someone from the UK (IIRC) lecturing an Aussie about what goes on here in the States. Let's hear it for the Anglosphere!

Seriously, I think the leave-us-alone, minimal government strain needs to prevail over the moralizing Christian strain to move forward. Several arguments come to mind:

- Of the Republican candidates, Huckabee ran a credible, reasonably well organized grassroots campaign that was clearly and openly based on his religious beliefs. He failed to win the Republican primary in a season in which there were no strong opponents. If that's the high water mark of the religious right among the Rs, what hope is there for that strain to prevail among the general electorate?

- If the Rs are to have another shot at the electorate, it's likely to come in a backlash against the Ds over-reach with leftist economics and moralizing nanny environmentalism. Such an over-reach seems almost guaranteed, based on the people involved and past history. But how will it sound if the Rs show up saying 'You can have back your market economy, but only with a dose of moralizing nanny religion'. Kind of weakens the pitch doesn't it?

- In an earlier post, Mr. Blue offered a survey of the outcome of referendums or proxies for one of the Christian right's biggest issues: abortion aka 'choice'. It was a record of defeat. However ugly the method of getting there, the American public is on average reasonably satisfied with the current state of play: On demand for two trimesters, very hard to get for the last. Raising voices doesn't seem likely to either change that outcome, or expand a voting base.

Should the Christian right still ally with the small government and libertarian strains of the Rs, and do they have legitimate demands in return? I think the answers are yes, and yes. The religious can reasonably ask for what we'd offer the rest of the populace: to be let alone. In this case, I think that could be reasonably extended to at least:

- Not being asked to pay in taxes for abortions and other acts they find repugnant
- Broad protection for home schooling, vouchers, and charter schools
- Getting the state out of the 'marriage business' entirely, to defang the 'gay marriage' issue

I can't see any of these offending small government conservatives, and they all fly in the face of the ideology or interests of the pressure groups making up the Ds.

#71 from Tim Oren:

"I'm being amused by someone from the UK (IIRC) lecturing an Aussie about what goes on here in the States. Let's hear it for the Anglosphere!"

:)

I think the "Anglophere" is real and important, and these conversations are valid and helpful.

#70 from Fletcher Christian:

"Mr. Blue, if you maintain that a mention of America's religious Right is irrelevant then it's your privilege - it's at least partly your site, after all."

I don't see it that way. I just prefer, more than most people I think, to keep the thread focused on topic. Anyone who makes a guest post has the same privilege of guiding the discussion to keep it on the subject their post was about.

Here I would suggest - and it's only a suggestion - that some of the issues being addressed here might fit better in my Australian Sex Party thread (link). I hope people will see that thread as an opportunity to discuss issues with "sexual politics", freedom, the way sexual liberty or regulation can overspill with consequences for other areas of policy like education, health and telecommunications policy, and the way issues come "bundled" with parties. It's not just about Aussie. When you've got the government of an Anglosphere, pro-freedom country trying to regulate the Internet to stop porn, in cooperation with Red China, the problems of sex have become fully international.

"Of the Republican candidates, Huckabee ran a credible, reasonably well organized grassroots campaign that was clearly and openly based on his religious beliefs. He failed to win the Republican primary in a season in which there were no strong opponents. If that's the high water mark of the religious right among the Rs, what hope is there for that strain to prevail among the general electorate?"

Yes, but Huckabee is not notably conservative, small government, or pro economic freedoms either.

Speaking as a 'grossly intolerant' 'lunatic fringe' member of the so call 'Christian Right' (in as much as I'm 'Christian' and 'conservative' and generally lumped with such), Huckabee struck me as just another liberal who happened to be a born again Christian (assuming his testimony can be believed) and therefore would have been no better (at best) than the one we already have in office. Again, if you want to test this theory, you actually have to site a candidate that is both Christian and conservative, and not merely one or the other. Consider for example the approval ratings of someone like Bobby Jindal.

Seriously, blaming the 'Christian Right' for the loss of the election when the nominee was John McCain seems to be a real stretch and nothing more than spin. If Huckabee had ran, perhaps you could make that case, but Huckabee struck most of us as a panderer who wore his religion a little too much on his sleeve with a little too ambition and not enough sincerity. McCain brought Palin on in no small part because alot of the 'Christian Right' stayed home because they weren't motivated to vote for John McCain - whose noted vulgarity was a turn off and whose conversion to supporting conservative social issues seemed a bit late in coming and again totally politically motivated rather than sincere conviction. You could just as easily argue that this election proves that the right can't win with the 'Christian Right'. Certainly the evangelical Christians outnumber the libertarians in this country by about three to one.

I don't see any evidence that this election represented a referendum on any sides core values. In brief, 'it's the economy stupid'. McCain had a good shot of winning before the financial meltdown and the bailout plan. Economic turmoil turned Obama's weakness - the fact that he's an unknown quantity - into a strength. When things are looking 'ok', people are afraid of the unknown. When things look bad, they're willing to give it a shot. It's as simple as that. Even if Bush's approval rating was high, the GOP would have a hard time winning an election where that occurred on their watch regardless of who the candidates were. As I've said before, the GOP should have been considered the underdog in the election even if the Dems ran their mascot for POTUS.

The nation hasn't had a sea change. Societies don't evolve that fast. It's still the same country that handed Bush the presidency in 2004. Just as the pundits on the right got overexcited about how 2004 represented the death of the Democratic party (in their minds) and the beginning of a permenent Republican majority, so many are getting vastly overexcited about what a marginal defeat in 2008 actually means. Get a grip. In 2008, people will likely be looking for change again. In the mean time, the best thing that the GOP can do is ensure that they have a candidate that actually represents change, innovation, and imagination and isn't in fact a continuation of the same old same old that both McCain and Obama represented.

Seriously, blaming the 'Christian Right' for the loss of the election when the nominee was John McCain seems to be a real stretch and nothing more than spin. If Huckabee had ran,

Huh? I went back and reread my post, and sure enough, there's not one word of blame that the Christian right cost McCain the election. It could be true, or not, but it's not what I said. What I said was that if a candidate of that persuasion can't win the Republican party, there's not much hope for the general election. I certainly wasn't pretending that McCain was such a candidate.

I'm not sure I'd call Huckabee a liberal, but I would call him a statist. One of the things I found attractive about Palin is that while she had religious principles, and the courage of her convictions, she had not (the fevered imaginings of the left aside) tried to use state power to impose them on others. THAT'S what I'm looking for, not someone devoid of principle.