Why conservatives lost the White House.
Posted by cann0nba11 on November 5, 2008
I’m still too pissed off to write much. Americans have voted for the wrong person for the wrong reasons. Obama is our president-elect because:
- Our primary system prevented the most viable Republican candidate from being selected in the first place.
- Florida voters gave McCain the push he needed in the primaries. Once again, Florida screws up.
- Huckabee and his inflexible far right supporters kept Romney from being a contender when the economy was the main issue. McCain admitted his weakness on the topic yet voters still voted for him.
- George Bush deeply angered his base, causing many voters to avoid voting at all. This is stupid for so many reasons.
- McCain selected Palin instead of Romney as his VP candidate. While Palin energized many fence-sitting conservatives, she equally motivated Obama supporters. The Palin selection pushed Obama’s fund raising activities to record levels.
- Obama outspent McCain 7:1. Obama received more funds from questionable and/or unidentifiable resources than McCain received in total. This after promising to use federal funding during the election… just one of the many lies and flip-flops that voters ignored.
- The press provided significantly biased reporting. This is a biggie. Even Obama couldn’t afford the daily multi-channel biased reporting from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, BET plus several Latino networks. By reporting only one side, by editing interviews, by repeating negative spots on the air, the casual voter, the average person that doesn’t do research only received one side of the story. This was reinforced by late night television. Letterman and Leno are both liberals and ripped McCain by overwhelming majority. Throw in Colbert, Stewart and Maher and the late night dog pile is complete.
So, what next? I found out last month that Samuel Adams is my 4th cousin 5 times removed and I recently started reading his biography. Adams is known not only as the name of a very good American beer, but he is the father of the American revolution. In 1748, while in his 20s Sam and some friends formed a newspaper called “The Public Advertiser.” The January 1748 issue included Adam’s first article, the subject was loyalty. Adams wrote that allegiance should be given to laws, not leaders. He told readers that just as men should not be ruled by mercurial emotions, citizens should be wary of cries of sedition and revolution. “It is a weak, feverish, sickly thing, a boisterous and unnatural vigor, which cannot support itself long, and oftentimes destroys the unhappy patient.”
1765, in response to the Stamp Act (Britain forcing taxes on the colonies) Adams expressed concern that if Americans were overburdened with taxes, their economy would collapse. “By restrictions and duties [England] is even now in danger of putting an end to [America’s] usefulness to her; whereas, by abolishing those duties and giving them indulgences, [America] would be enabled to repay her a hundredfold.”
My friends, ignorance is bliss. Sadly, I am not ignorant and this election has really got me down. In case you’re wondering, the phases of loss are: Shock, Denial, Bargaining, Guilt, Anger, Depression, Resignation, Acceptance, Hope. I am still deeply entrenched in the anger phase. I’m the only income for my family, we home school, our employer is a small company, and our national security is at stake. The Obama administration will have a direct effect on my life. Uninformed yet highly motivated voters elected a president that will increase taxes and increase government in our lives, while seeking out global opinion and approval for much of what we do going forward.
As Adams said above: allegiance should be given to laws, not leaders. America has taken a major step in the wrong direction and I will not support this president. I will fight hard to help legislators pass laws that help my family, my employer and my country. I will do everything I can to fight the will of Pelosi, Reid and Obama.
This will be a tough four years, but the pendulum will eventually swing back to the right. Until then, this is our future for the next four years:
The Loud Talker 
broadsunlituplands said
Back in the real world it is Conservative philosophy and governance that failed and was solidly rejected. It is illogical and unresolvable to believe in “small govt” and a “national security state” at the same time. One cannot resolve the contradiction between “fiscal responsibility” and “deficit spending.” One cannot resolve the contradiction between demanding lower taxes and international interventionism, or between the free market as sacrosanct and bailouts, or govt doesn’t work, with massive expansion of govt. And for petes sake take some responsibility for your beliefs and actions outcomes.
Doug Loss said
That’s a complete load of crap, Broadsunlituplands. You are confusing conservative philosophy with Republican Party policies and projects. They aren’t nearly the same thing. The Republican Party chose to become Democrats Lite and repudiated the principles we conservatives (and the majority of the country, if you ask them without identifying a political label that covers them) believe in, those of individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and traditional morality. To the extent that the Republicans support these values, they win handily. To the extent that they don’t, they lose. Just as in this election. McCain was never liked by conservatives, who voted for him grudgingly because Sarah Palin (a true conservative) was on the ticket, or who stayed home because there was no on on the ballot they could support.
FreeRangeOyster said
Broad, you make a common mistake: confusing the Republican party with conservatism. The Republican party’s elected officials have not been truly conservative in many years. Yes, the Republican party has failed – because it did not practice “Conservative philosophy and governance.” Conservatives do take responsibility for our actions, which is why the conservative blogosphere has been abuzz with discussion since before this election was done on what we can do to restore our principles and philosophy to power in the Republican party. Economic and governmental conservatism is not to be found with the current batch of empty suits in Washington. We believe in, as our host here pointed out, a government of laws and not of men. We’re working to throw out the ones who failed us. Take a look in a couple of years and I’ll show you a new batch of real conservatives, and then we can really discuss the difference in philosophies and results. Oyster out.
B-Daddy said
Bush is not a conservative, so the conservatives did not “lose the White House.” If there was ever any doubt, the massive socialist bailout is the final proof.
On Romney: He had plenty of time as the front runner to make his case. He never adequately branded himself nor explained he stood for. With his business experience he could have hammered on the economy, but he spent lots of time going negative and emphasizing social issues, not really his strength. I always thought he was a phony on the social issues anyway, which certainly didn’t move the base.
McCain could have snatched this election if he had offered a serious alternative to the bailout and ran against both Bush and Obama. When he had the big drama of suspending the campaign, he failed to follow through. As Dennis Miller said, “Then it was game over.”
broadsunlituplands said
Thanks to the three of you for your replies.
You all have essentially made the “expert authority argument,” which is a way to quibble. If that argument is true then, then you are all reasonably recognizing the following arguments:
1. Islamic Terrorists are not “true” Muslims.
2. The USSR was not a “true” Marxists state.
3. The Inquisition was not a “true” Christian organization.
Etc, etc. Then you are stuck in a world where you can’t be sure how to measure success. We are as we do, not as we wish. You all stood by while the GOP branded their party conservative, and likely accepted the infamous libeling of the Dems. Please note the construction I used was big C Conservative, not small c conservative. This has significance in our language. So I put it to you, who is confused?
Doug Loss said
There was no infamous libeling of the Dems, Broad. There was some truth-telling, which I suppose seems like libel to you. Oh, and there is no “big C Conservative.” Do you honestly believe that “Republican” and “Conservative” are officially synonymous? Who is confused? Why that would be you, sir. As for your three arguments, Muslims will have to decide for themselves whether the terrorists in their midst are true Muslims; no one disputes that the USSR was a Marxist state (even other Marxists); and almost all Christians have disclaimed the Inquisition as non-Christian.
And just so you know, we didn’t all stand by while the GOP branded itself conservative. We all knew and told anyone who would listen that it was straying from conservative principles. Perhaps you haven’t been listening to us? Trick question, of course you haven’t.
broadsunlituplands said
Dougy it appears that you are a true believer and that you are resistant to ideas. i conclude that from the poorly aimed ad hominem attack toward me and your causal assertion that you speak for everybody. Your statement about what I do and do not know seems to fit the dictionary definition of ignorant.I guess you’d be unbearable if your views hadn’t lost decisively. Conservatives are as they do, airy fairy beliefs not withstanding. Conservative ideology has prevailed for 30 years take some responsibility.
Doug Loss said
Gee Broad, your last post is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. Have an actual point to make, or do you just like to attack others? I certainly didn’t attack you unless you believe that a claim that you aren’t paying attention to anyone but yourself is an attack. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to disparage me. I ask you, who’s making the ad hominem attacks? Oh, and you have a basic misunderstanding of what a “causal assertion” is. Please point out where I made any such statement. And your attempted infantilization by using a childish nickname is noted and rejected. Sorry, you lose on pretty much every point.
broadsunlituplands said
Well, how bout trying to stay on point Dougy, your constant redefintion of terms and arguments is tiresome. Conservatives ran this country for nearly 30 years and now have lost the recent election. I am going to say that is a rejection of the prevailing ideology of those last 30 years. Maybe Conservatives will go back to being traditional conservatives, instead of defying American tradition being the radical Christian Nationalists that they actually are. And a prediction, if the GOP continues veering off to the extreme right, Obama led Dems will have a further electoral slaughter in 2010. I have a victory party to attend… losers!
Doug Loss said
Conservatives never ran the country, Broad. You keep trying to equate Republican with conservative when it’s been explained over and over to you that that’s not the case. Like so many on the left, you’re not discussing, you’re just chanting yoru dogma in the hope and expectation that it’ll be accepted as the basis for further discussion. And you still don’t seem capable to do anything more than call names. The temptation to respond in kind is strong, but luckily I’m adult enough to resist it. If you have anything intelligent to say, please say it. Otherwise just go away and try to grow up, would you?
broadsunlituplands said
You’re projecting Dougy. Pot-Kettle-Black. Thanks for showing me the mote in my eye though. Your post is a fine example of what is wrong with Conservative “thought:” bankrupt double-talk. Also your simple minded binary view is in direct conflict with your desire to falsely claim distance between you and your boy W. You own the whole Reagan thru W Conservative ideology driven national disaster. Conservatives never stand up and accept their ownership of the outcomes they create. It is your fault that we invaded a non threatening country with lunatic goals, it is your fault that the deficit is astronomical due to your phony tax the future and spend now policy, it is your fault that we cannot make intelligent accommodations with social and technological progress. You, who accept no responsibility for your support of the most felonious party of modern times. Your argument is essentially one that could be made by former Iraqi Baathists: I wasn’t a Baathist I just found it convenient to support them fully while they did some of what I wanted. Whatever dude. I hope you Conservatives continue your heroic struggle against reality.
Doug Loss said
Amazing. You evidently haven’t been able to comprehend a thing I said. Of course, as I so rightly pointed out in my previous post, you’re not discussing anything with me. You’re just chanting your bankrupt mantra of “conservatives equal Republicans, bad, bad, bad!” Idiot.
broadsunlituplands said
Again, thanks for noticing the mote in my eye. Conservatives wretched failures and stupidity are amazing. You cannot process any information that you label as produced outside of your incestuous echo chamber. You are making yourself ridiculous. Loser!
broadsunlituplands said
For anyone else reading this what Doug is engaged in is an argument that is tangental to the main point at best. This can be described as –a distinction without a difference– that is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.
“In legal terminology it means a change in definition which does not change the set which is defined. For example changing ‘unseparated married men’ to ‘males who have a non-separated spouse’ is a distinction without a difference.”[1]
An example from the 2007 film Changeling comes when a police captain is being questioned about his decision to institutionalize a woman. When the questioning attorney describes the woman as having been “thrown into the mental hospital” the policeman asserts that “She was not thrown, she was escorted.” In either case the result is the same.
The phrase can also have a meaning beyond the preference for euphemisms. In general this involves an over specificity with regard to terminology which, while technically correct and accurate, does not change the overall meaning or understanding of the case in point. For example, some people characterized anti-Muslim comments made by an United States Representative as “racist.” While someone might technically quibble that Muslims are not a race and that therefore his actions were not “racist” this is a distinction without a difference since prejudice on religious grounds is not generally considered any more socially acceptable than prejudice based on racial grounds.
Thanks to Wikipedia
Doug Loss said
Geez, talk about tangential! You cast aspersions on everyone and everything that doesn’t meet your leftist standards and then claim that it’s me who isn’t addressing issues. Broad, if anyone is still reading this at all I think it’s just to laugh at you. Now you’re claiming that words aren’t important, it’s what you’ve decided we mean rather than what we say that matters. You’r a joke.
cann0nba11 said
Wow… an interesting thread to say the least.
Broan, how about pointing out some of the ‘wretched failures’ of the Busha adminsitration. I agree that the war was handled poorly at times, but we have all but won. We would have won much earlier if democratic leadership and political correctness would have let our soldiers fight the way they were capable of.
Let’s turn this around for a moment Broad. Can you point to any recent Democratic successes? They have been in power for almost two years now, yet the party of Pelosi and Reid have done nothing at all. The woman that said “lets hear it for the power” has done nothing but to create a congressional environment that makes GWB’s presidential approval ratings look GOOD by comparison.
The Republican Party shunned its conservative roots and has pissed off most conservatives, including me. The left has moved further left. The current financial crisis we face is not the making of GWB. It is mainly the result of the housing bubble burst that was created by Carter, worsened by Clinton and ignored by Frank and Dodd. You can chant the “eight years of failed policies” mantra all you want, but it doesn’t make it true.
Tell me wise one: what will Obama do to make things better for America?
broadsunlituplands said
Well Cannon, I despise both parties, but I never expected much from the Democrats. I support Obama, at this time, contingent upon delivering results. The GOP shunned traditional conservatives for a long time. They have pandered to the wing I would call the National Christianist wing, new to the party in the 70’s. People like Rockefeller, Taft, Ford, and McCain once upon a time represented core GOP values. This crazy religious stuff is the new and it has now failed.
Whatever has happened in Iraq it is neither victory nor defeat. We have late in the game begun to suspect how a tribal society works and have paid off the leaders. Once again our troops are victorious everywhere but there is no peace because this was not a military problem. When we attacked Iraq we should have been aware of our true options. 1. partition, or 2. use preexisting Iraqi forces and structures with new guys in charge. There was never a chnace we could remake their society or westernize them. It is not safe for our troops to walkabout off duty like we could in Germany when I served. That we do not leave off the roof of the embassy is great but no victory. Mark my words, this is not over. there will be decades of civil conflict there.
The thing I hate about so called ‘conservatives’ of today is the failure and craven dishonesty. You all are not conservative in the traditional sense, you all are radical innovators. You have learned nothing from history, ours or others. Y’all are so corkscrewed up that you rarely can even process thoughts outside of a simplistic binary approach. Essentially you see a difference of opinion as heresy, I detest that.
cann0nba11 said
I’m not really conservative, I think I lean center right. I’m probably more libertarian than anything. I’m really pissed that the hard right Christian segment for not being flexible or open-minded enough to do what was right for the Right. I’m equally pissed at Bush and the Republicans that left conservatism for power. America basically got screwed.
As to heresy versus differing opinions, I don’t understand your comment. I have constantly tried to promote debate, and have been kicked off of the DailyKOS twice for trying to do so in a civil manner. The left is NOT at all tolerant, which puzzles me since they claim to be the compassionate side of the aisle.
Iraq has been and will always be a mess. We could have won the war if we let our soldiers fight the way they were trained. Blow up mosques, shoot the enemy, whether or not they are on the right side of the street or not. My next door neighbor is special forces and he has lost several friends thanks to the “don’t shoot first” rule. It’s completely insane.
What “:craven dishonesty” are you referring to?
broadsunlituplands said
Dougy, good luck with whatever your peddling, though National Christianism has already failed. Please ensure futher failure by your efforts. I am willing to school should you move politics out of the realm of belief and into the realm of thought. I will pray, in my traditional mainline church for your fear to be replaced with joy.
cann0nba11 said
There is no such thing as National Christianism. George Bush is not trying to create a theocracy. Any claims of such are worthy of tin foil. What I’m ‘peddling’ is simply an opinion to try and counter balance much of the disinformation and liberal bias that is out there.
In America you do NOT have the right not to be offended. Our country was based on religious principles, I refuse to let this positive influence in our country be stomped on by immature and intolerant adult children.
broadsunlituplands said
Cannonball well, I have never claimed the left was tolerant, and wouldn’t. Whats funny is that Lefts many ridiculous sttaements I wonder why no one bothers to attack them in their language. e.g. if evolution is true, then equality is at most a legal notion. Anyway, I find them less dangerous than the neocons and Religious Right though. This country was founded as a secular for the the purpose among others to keep religion from belong polluted by temporal power. For my part I am not offended easily and never play the victim.
First I never game a damn about Saddam, Iraq, or the Kuwaitis. I never thought Saddam’s Iraq was a threat to the U.S. at all, and to quote John Q. Adams do not beleive in going abroad in search of monsters. However, were I tasked with regime change I would have needed about half the troops we sent. Because I have studied cultural geography and human behavior. I would have rolled in with a plan to supplant Saddam but keep the apparatus intact. The Iraqis essentially would not fight for Saddam, they were terrified of him yes, but they hated him. I would have maintained control through use of the tribes and the existing apparatus, allowing for Kurdistans independence. I would have had in mind those to be removed and those to be promoted to run things in detail, modified through experiance. And anytime American troops were killed or injured, I would have held the -tribes- culpable. THey are different than us. There is no individual guilt, in a collective tribal society.
We have been fighting an insurgency that is solely created in response to our provocations. Since as a people we are unable to admit error and are weirdly paranoid that countries are out to get us, we don’t see straight and make bad decisions. We torture ineffectively, antagonize people in in their country after claiming we came to liberate them, why would they not fight?