http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/11/long-knives-are-out-and-fight-will-be.html

Sarah Palin loaded for Bear.

Like I said, so what ?
Our state is 75% democratic and the elected a con, know why ?
Because the dem choices sucked so bad they had little choice, still, today, they are all democrats.
You even told me that you might vote for McCain based on his liberal stances.
Must be hard living in world where everyone is dumber than you.

I dont need to project a darn thing on you, are you serious ?
Any stranger to this blog would read your stuff for the first time and swear you were a rip roaring moonbat liberal fanatic.

I have to say, liberals have no sense of humor. But that doesnt take away from the fact that yer all good for a laugh sometimes

Micky, this year I voted for a Republican sheriff and against (Florida has a strange new Judicial vote system, you should look it up, it’s wierd) a couple Democratic judges. So what does that make me? A Republocrat? You’re not a “partisan” simply because you vote for a partisan. That’s just plain childish logic. I’m not a Democrat because I am not a partisan. It’s as simple as that. Sure, I consider partisan politics when I vote (balance of power, current caucus generalities, etc), but again it would be childish to say that therefore I’m a partisan. I’ve voted for Nader and Perot too. Does that make me a “United We Standocrat” or a “Naderican.” Those were protest votes targetted specifically against partisanship. If I had been in a “safe” state, I might well have done it again this time around. So please, don’t project your partisanship on me. That’s your problem, not mine.

Politicalhipster,

SUSA is a joke. I wouldn’t use their results to wash my dogs behind.

I agree with your points 1-3 and appauld your honesty, as I assume your a GOPer. I disagree with points 3 and 4 and here’s why. Lieberman would have nothing to shore up his base and very little to garner more votes from the middle. It would have shored up his vote among Jews, perhaps, but I think most Jews that were supporting Obama (which was a majority of Jews) would have seen such a pick as cynical and would not have been swayed by it, just as McCain’s cynical pick of Palin did not shore up his numbers among women. And finally, I don’t know where you live, but in swing states like Florida (which is where I am) the GOP and McCain and 529’s slammed Obama on his controversial associations endlessly and McCain lost ALL those states. So it just goes to prove - nobody except the already rightwing Kool-Aid converted care for AT ALL those sleasy guilt-by-association attacks. If you want top keep LOSING elections, keep up the sleazy “swift-boating” style attacks. American are SICK of it.

JMJ

My take on McCain’s defeat is as follows:

Even though McCain’s had to contend with an extremely unpopular incumbent and an economy sliding into recession, he still should have won. After all, as late as summer of last year he was crushing Obama by Reagan-esque margins in SUSA head to heads. McCain didn’t have to deal with an impeached predecessor (Gerald Ford in 1976), anarchy on the streets and a third party candidate siphoning off votes (Hubert Humphrey in 1968), or seven percent unemployment (George HW Bush in 1992), yet all those candidates ran their opponents closer in the popular vote than McCain did.

The bailout undoubtedly alienated all sections of society and the dismal stock market performance in October, caused by Bush’s scaremongering, probably accounted for the massive swing against McCain among voters earning more than $200k (according to the exit polls) who saw their stock portfolio devastated in October. However, the numbers of upper income voters were very small (around 6%) and there was over a month between Bush’s signing of the bill and the election, plenty of time to win swing voters back.

So if it wasn’t the economy, here’s what I think it was:

1. The idea of Sarah Palin –

Experience and national security should have been at the core of McCain’s election strategy, and for a time it was. By the end of the Democratic convention McCain had pulled back the six point lead that Obama had opened up after Hillary conceded and was on course for a three point victory in the popular vote. However, by selecting Palin, who had less experience than the Senator from Illinois, both at a local and national level, McCain threw both the experience and foreign policy card away, ironically when it was about to be needed the most.

2. McCain’s response to the bailout -

McCain, could have limited the fallout from Bush’s folly by either taking a low profile, or he could have doubled down (and done the right thing) by opposing the bailout on both conservative (waste of taxpayer’s money) and centre-left (welfare for Wall Street) grounds. Instead, his decision to suspend his campaign, and then do nothing, seemed like a publicity stunt. Ironically, both his reaction and the selection of Palin prevented a ‘flight to quality’ of swing voters towards him.

3. The reality of Palin

Palin’s cannot be blamed for accepting McCain’s offer to join the ticket. However, she is accountable for her subsequent behaviour. Even if McCain’s staff failed to prepare her properly, and Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson secretly wanted her to fail, Palin failed to meet the minimum standards of coherence and awareness expected of any serious politician during the two now notorious interviews. Similarly, her decision to ‘go rouge’ was unprecedented among modern running mates, and provided a nasty distraction during the later stages of the campaign when McCain was trying to turn things around.

4. Not picking Joe Lieberman

The decision not to pick Joe Lieberman was a disaster, since picking Lieberman would have put Iraq in the limelight, emphasised McCain’s maverick credentials and allowed McCain to play offense in the ‘Blue States’. The way in which the vice-presidential selection was handled also gave the impression that McCain was not in control of his own party. McCain’s failure to pick the Connecticut Senator was also emblematic of a lot of missed opportunities to run to the centre; whether on immigration, taxation or any issue other than national security. He also failed to properly criticise the Bush administration when it started wobbling on Iran.

5. Jeremiah Wright / Bill Ayers

McCain missed an opportunity to attack Obama on his links with Wright Although Wright was more buffoonish than anything, his comments about September 11th were clearly fair game. Done properly, this could have won over the Reagan Democrats who, as Stan Greenberg pointed out, ‘give Obama remarkably low marks on national security and have great trouble dismissing what Reverend Wright said about America’. Conversely, Palin’s botched attack on Ayers, which echoed a previous ad that was too incediary for even FOX, repelled both the press and moderate voters.

Meet The Real Sarah Palin Blog, Has a posted a “Dear John Letter” to Senator John McCain, with a link to send your feedback, about his lack of support of his running mate, election has been ABSENT “Don’t Forget Your Wingman John”

http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/11/dear-john-letter.html

McCain got 48% of the popular vote.
A good part of us were hoping he’d come back to the right a little once in office.
Whatever, hes got less knowhow than Carter did, that—-is —-bad.

Only when anything is “NOT” a disaster does anyone want any part of it.

When you vote for a party , you’re one of em.

JMJ

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af5f65a2-a7b7-11dd-865e-000077b07658.html

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/03/stories/2008110353561500.htm

There’s a bunch more stories out there if you bother to look. It took me all of five seconds. You shouldn’t just get your news from the Moony Times. It’s a rag by and for loonies. This is the kind of stiff that makes the Right look uneducated and paranoid.

JMJ

?

I think you mean Coleman will win, Kreskin. He might. But if it wasn’t for Barkley, Franken would have won by a pretty big margin. So much for Coleman.

“Theres till a majority of 48% out there that want conservatism…”

Well, that’s a prett arbitary assumption. Ask people about specific issues, and it’s a lot more complicated than that. Most Americans want more protectionist trade, more progressive taxation, and universal healthcare. On the other hand, on social issues, Americans tend to be center-right. It’s certainly not true that most Americans are Republicans. That’s only about a third.

“You have nothing yet but the most unqualified man ever elected to office.”

I don’t know about that. I can think of quite a few presidents that could be thought of as less qualified - especially Bush, who’s resume included a string of failed businesses, zero academics, a history of goofing around, and the governorship of the state with the constitutionally weakest exective branch in the nation. Franklin Pierce was less qualified, and boy did he ever show it. Really, the whole post-reconstruction crowd were a bunch of seriously unqualified shmucks. Truman kinda came outta nowhere and he worked out pretty good. Ford was a decent man and president, but didn’t have much in the way of “qualifications.” I could go on, but I really don’t think you care. I mean, anyone who thinks Palin was qualified to be anything more than a “hockey mom” shouldn’t be throwing stones outta that glass house.

And I don’t know about “my party.” I don’t have one. I never have. I think partisanship is for thieves and fools.

As for your notion of “greed,” I think that glass house is long since smashed to tiny little shards. No one is greedier than the Right.

As for free trade, there’s a good example of why I’m not partisan. Niether party espouses reining in that disaster.

JMJ