« the perils of facebook | Main | the worst day of their lives »

December 07, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tom Grey

With an unpopular Rep. Bush presidency, and the economic meltdown, no Rep was gonna win UNLESS he had clearly been anti-Bush on economics.
Maybe like Mike Huckabee, a populist conservative anti-elite.

I think you're missing the reality that the old elite, Big Bank, Big Business, rich Republican is being swept aside/ leaving for the Dems.
Sarah Palin will be one of the faces of the future Reps: working for a living, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian.
In favor of American victory when America is fighting.

Had Lieberman been on the ticket, it would have been a far bigger Dem blowout, with a real conservative rebellion against the elite / moderates who advocated McCain, but then left for Obama anyway.

Ian Leslie

Tom, I think you're right about what would have happened if Lieberman had been picked. I also agree that Sarah Palin may well be one of the major faces of the Republicans in the next few years. But (I suspect) unlike you, I think both those things spell bad, bad news for the electoral prospects of the GOP.

By the way: "in favor of American victory when America is fighting" - as opposed to...all those Republicans and Democrats in favour of American defeat? Who might they be?

Tom Grey

I notice it is YOU, not I, who create the strawman phrase "in favor of American defeat", and ask who? Of course, none claim that; yet...

Who? Well, those in Democratic Party who voted in 1974-75 to 1) restrict the ability of the President to send forces back to Indo-China, (even if the N. Viet commies violated the Paris Peace Accords),
2) voted to reduce funding for the US backed S. Viet allies.
These Dems essentially voted to allow the N. Viet commies to win.
The US lost. Because of Congressional votes. None claimed to support American defeat.

In Iraq, the Dems who wanted the US to withdraw 2005-2007, and those, like Barack Obama, who were against the surge -- all opposing the actions needed for victory.

Similarly, it is the anti-war folk who allow genocide in Darfur (tho the UN says it's not). I claim the choice is war or genocide (and favor war); the anti-war folk don't claim to favor genocide, but they have been accepting it and NOT protesting it as much as protesting against Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
What do you favor?

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics

diversions

my other places

ads