What is coming out of the McCain campaign now is pure poison, trying to shift blame for their incompetence and mismanagement on to Sarah Palin. And the Palin camp is fighting back, trying to answer these charges. What is striking is that they are giving reasonable explanations for issues being raised by McCain loyalists. It makes them much more believable than the wildly exaggerated image the twits are pushing of Palin as a “diva.”
It stinks of cowardice for McCain staffers not to own up to the fact that it was their ideas, their plan, and their piss poor execution that resulted in this landslide loss in the electoral college. There was nothing inspiring about this campaign at all. It didn’t energize the base. It failed to convince other conservatives that McCain would govern much differently than Obama. In the end, the candidate had no recognizable set of principles, no identifiable ideology, and no real issue that would have energized Republicans and conservatives and brought them to the polls.
Posts
7 comments:
There are various approaches. AI still pulling for Mitt and Huck saying tent's too small if you don't accept them. I think the tent will get very very small indeed if you do.
Conservatives voted abuot the same as in 2004 (minus 1%, actually) and polling suggests Palin wasn't a drag.
Not that logic goes very far here, but it seems that Obama won all the moderates that McCain has spent his life getting close to.
Means two things:
1) McCain was the right pick for the Republicans. Anyone further right would have lost any modeerates McCain did have.
2) Palin brought in the right.
I don't buy your snake oil, JJ. I said it from the beginning, and I keep saying it now: McCain was a poor choice as a Republican standard-bearer this year. Not a horrible choice, but not an inspiring one, either -- not by a mile. So OK, neither Mitt nor Huck (and certainly not Rudy, who proved to be the most inept campaigner of all, as I predicted) were great candidates, either -- but maybe they would have grown in stature running for President, and given Obama a run for his money. We'll never know.
As it was, McCain ran one of the most inept campaigns of modern times: no identifiable idea, just reacting to events, in a chaotic and disjointed fashion. He managed to undercut his single most precious asset: the claim to experience, competence, and reliability. With that basically gone, there was not much else to stand on, except party loyalty -- which in the end he more-or-less got (as did Dole in 1996). But that's not enough to win the Presidency -- not even close.
As for the future of conservatism (and a vibrant, two-party system), it looks very bleak right now. Excluding people like Mitt and Huck based on some kind of ideological or religious test would be self-defeating, and rather absurd. Putting all hope on someone as "thin" as Palin is rather pathetic. As I said many times, I have nothing against her, but she's simply not ready for prime time. Maybe if that convicted Senator from Alaska resigns, she runs, and wins, and spends a few years in Washington learning the ropes, and making a name for herself the old-fashioned way, then she may be ready in a few years -- maybe.
In the meantime, we need a bigger bench, new ideas. But that's extremely tough to do, in this political environment, which is only bound to get worse for conservatism, at least in the short term, maybe long-term, too.
Reasonable enough. But again, who? Pawlenty and Mitt And Huck are losers a la grande.
Cheney being out, Rove being out and Rice being out left no heir apparent. Need someone new. Palin in Congress is a terrible idea unless she cleans out the stables there in one term or makes it look damned good.
Texas has a couple strong people like Rick Perry. What about a proven genius like Gates or Petraeus down the road.
There's plenty of good blood around, just not in the hideously corrupt Foley-Craig homo congress.
Gates and Petraeus sound very good -- though they'd need to first get in the civilian arena, and cut their teeth there, too. (Remember Ike at Columbia?)
How about Jindal -- he any good, or too flaky?
Also, that sun-tanned gov from Florida -- the one who handed out the nomination to McCain on a silver platter? He looks quite smooth, but perhaps too much like a snake-oil salesman (Huck being the champ at that).
And, while at it, how about someone who understands economics? You recall from way back when, one of my main complaints about McCain is that he is a self-confessed ignoramus when it comes to the economy -- and proud of that. As I expected (but in a much, much worse way than in my most pessimistic conjectures), his lack of economic competence blew up in his face in the Fall campaign, big time.
Finally, how about Newt? He's a smart guy, you gotta hand him that.
I don't think we need an economist in the WH. Carter was an engineer and was the greatest failure ever.
Probably generalists and good judges of character are the best presidents. Guys like Truman and Reagan. They don't know from economics but can listen to people that do.
Yeah Gates and Petraeus need some time in elected office. The Villepin route doesn't lead far, does it?
Jindal worries me. At LGF he is detested for tolerating "Intelligent Design". If the righties there can't abide, then you can forget outside of the right.
You say we can't or shouldn't apply litmus tests like that, but the fact is that everyone in the electorate will. Palin got labeled an antievolutionist on some pretty shaky grounds (she went to a church where someone said something about monkeys and people being different) while Obama can go to AIDS conspiracy church and get away with it.
You get it, I am sure.
I don't know the Fl Gov. Tell me. I think Newt has too many negatives. Besides, his name sounds like "Mitt."
Charlie Crist.
Those are the earmarks of a conflicted closet homo??? Larry Craig sure fits that profile. Or was he not conflicted? Or was he not a closet? Or was he not a homo but just a gent with a skeletal propensity to wide stances?
Post a Comment