« I Dissent | Main | Road Map: First 100 Days »

The Public Be Damned

There's a lot of shouting around the blogosphere, even here, from those who backed President-Elect Obama. The main theme I've noticed so far is joyful celebrations about "the death of conservatism" and "the American people have seen through your shams" and "the dustbin of history" and "Republicans are dead" and the like. There seems to be, at least from certain elements, more glee that Republicans lost than Democrats won.

Apparently those of us who didn't hop on the Obama bandwagon are supposed to just quietly shuffle off into corners and die quietly, then wait for Eric Idle to come around with his cart for our rotting carcasses. That, apparently, is our civic duty, now that the Democrats hold the presidency and both houses of Congress.

My first response is that history doesn't ever end. There are no happy endings, no unhappy endings, no endings whatsoever -- things just go on and on. So to declare that the results of a single election (even one as sweeping as yesterday's) will have that much effect on our political climate is just plain stupid. John McCain still won about 47% of the vote, and that is not a sign of a dying electorate. Or, as a great philosopher once said, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

The Democrats hold nearly all the cards now -- both nationally, and here in my own home state of New Hampshire. (If I drank, I'd need one right about now.) But pending President Obama suspending elections and rounding up dissenters for concentration camps, there will be more elections in 2010 and 2012, and anyone who tells you how they will go is seriously delusional.

My second response is the one I should have thought of first -- to utterly reject the argument.

I have certain principles. I had them before yesterday, I still have them today, and I will keep them long after President=Elect Obama takes the oath of office. I did not derive them from any expression of public approval or disapproval, and they will not be swayed by any expression of public approval or disapproval.

I have certrain beliefs. I had them before yesterday, I still have them today, and I will keep them long after President=Elect Obama takes the oath of office. I did not derive them from any expression of public approval or disapproval, and they will not be swayed by any expression of public approval or disapproval.

I have certain ideals. I had them before yesterday, I still have them today, and I will keep them long after President=Elect Obama takes the oath of office. I did not derive them from any expression of public approval or disapproval, and they will not be swayed by any expression of public approval or disapproval.

I do not consider myself to have an overarching ideology. My principles, beliefs, and ideals were assembled on a point-by-point basis, derived from careful and rational thought on each issue individually. As such, the assigning of any such labels or categories to me means nothing, and the rise and fall of those labels and categories trouble me not one whit.

I do not belong to any political party. I have occasionally registered with one or the other for the purposes of participating in primary elections, but but more often than not I tend to split my ballot in the general election. (Yesterday was an aberration, the first time I can remember ever voting a straight-ticket slate. In 2004, with four major races, I voted for two Democrats and two Republicans.) So the rise and fall of any particular party doesn't bother me much, as long as the checks and balances that are a part of a two=party system is maintained and neither party gains so much influence that it can act without being checked.

Yesterday, many of my principles, beliefs, and ideals were rejected by the majority (and, in some cases, the plurality) of the electorate. I do not take that as a rebuke in the least. Rather, I see it as a challenge -- to continue espousing the things I believe in, as strongly and persuasively as I can, in hopes that I can sway others to see things as I do.

No, I do not take it as an "opportunity" to re-examine them. I do that on a regular basis anyway. I have arrived at them by my own experiences, thoughts, studies, and contemplations. As those are ongoing processes, they have already been tested and revised and corrected when needed. To say that I suddenly need to re-evaluate these things because of an election is to say that I do not hold them that dearly at all, and they are subject to the approval of the majority.

They are not. And they never will be.

I have a great deal of concerns about President-Elect Obama's administration. I have spelled them out quite thoroughly over the past year or so here. Further, I am even more troubled by the agendas of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi -- as Obama has absolutely no record of ever speaking up and challenging his party's leadership, but evinced a "go along to get along" attitude whenever given the opportunity.

I very well may be wrong. Lord knows I've been wrong before, on enough other issues. President-Elect Obama just might pull off his plans, and they very well might make things better despite my fears to the contrary.

At that point, with actual facts before me, I will re-evaluate my principles, beliefs, and ideals, and how they apply to certain issues.

But not yet. Not with no evidence to the contrary other than "a lot of people disagree with you."

A lot of people thought the earth was flat.

A lot of people thought the sun revolved around the earth.

A lot of people thought that Man would never fly.

On the other hand, a lot of people thought that Man would walk on the moon by the end of the 1960's, too.

I shall wait and see.

Until then, though, I will remain true to my own self. I will not bend and sway with the polls -- either the meaningless ones conducted right up through yesterday, or the only one that really mattered.

The public be damned.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32798.

Comments (97)

Let's be honest JT. A lot o... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

Let's be honest JT. A lot of what is represented by the media as "Conservatism" is exemplified by the media's love (in a patronizing way) affair with Pat Buchanan, John McCain, and Scalia. But of the 3, only one is an elected official, and he is not conservative. The media finds a position it disagrees with and labels it "Conservative".

But in truth, there was nothing conservative about Bush. Sure he had tax cuts, and an aggressive foreign policy. But he also oversaw the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal, his stance on immigration was closer to Ted Kennedy's, and his spending was off the chains. Furthermore, McCain was more disliked by conservatives than liberals.

But when you look at the Dems who won, they were moderate Dems. Not San Francisco Dems. I think the groundwork is being laid for a conservative revival. American is still center right, and wants governance from the middle-right. I still think that conservatism as displayed in the 1990's will win, over Republican power that was displayed in in the past 8 years. Get young and coherent reformist conservatives like Palin and Michael Steele in the mix, and you will see a rebound. I believe that is how the Republicans gained power in 1994.

Obama deserves all the resp... (Below threshold)
Mr. Dangerfield:

Obama deserves all the respect (or lack thereof) that the liberals have given to George Bush. You reap what you sow.

First JT, I could not agree... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

First JT, I could not agree with you more. You crystalized my thoughts on my own principles exactly. It was fun the past year playing the "political game" of the election cycle. I have gone through many. John McCain lost but it was not a rout which does say something about how unsure a large part of the electorate is of Obama. I will commit to supporting and encouraging the Obama presidency with all the decency and honor the left showed to GW since 2000. The flip has been flopped. I wish our country well. I am not hoping for a catastrophe but I am here to point out every lie, misstep and mistake ad nauseum if it is warranted. ww

Very good, Jay, and my sent... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Very good, Jay, and my sentiments exactly. I am not a balloon that drifts with the wind. My philosophy has been thoughtfully constructed in consultation with great thinkers as Aristotle and Christ. Yesterday changes nothing. I will continue to discourse in the marketplace of ideas as long as I have my mind. Free or otherwise.

That is the stuff upon which our great republic was founded. Those principles simply are.

Obama is NOT my president.<... (Below threshold)
Piso Mojado:

Obama is NOT my president.

The Media chose him.
The Media chose his opponent.
The Media pushed gloom & doom.
The Media put halos on Obama.
The Media refused to vet Obama.
The Media destroyed anyone who got in their way.

Thank the Media for Obama. They did this to America.

ObamaHitlerChimpy is NOT my president.

Jay,Join the colle... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Jay,

Join the collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

#1 Chris G: You na... (Below threshold)
Clay:

#1 Chris G:

You nailed it. Obama and McCain were only different by degree. I voted last night as I have in all the presidential races since Reagan: Against the opponent, but for nobody.

When FDR was elected, my da... (Below threshold)

When FDR was elected, my dad tells me, people who were educated and principled were despondent. The socialists had taken control of the United States and our great Republic was doomed.

Well, we certainly have a lot of socialist programs around still, but FDR is long gone and our Republic has not ended.

Our great country will survive Obama, as it did FDR and Carter and Clinton. We'll be around to clean up the mess as we have done before.

Hey JT, I so enjoy reading ... (Below threshold)
jmk:

Hey JT, I so enjoy reading your articles - very cleary thought-out and well written. The only thing I'd disagree with in this one is the re-evaluation part at the end. I really don't care if taking money from people who make a lot of money and giving it to people who don't makes the economy better or not. Even if it did cause a better economy, it's wrong.

I doubt that's what you meant but it's the first thing that came to mind as I read the end. Anyway, keep up the great work!

Jeff

Good post JT. The reality o... (Below threshold)
Twilson:

Good post JT. The reality of the philosophical debate that we have every two years is that the liberals must reevaluate their position when they encounter an election loss because while they generally know what they believe, they don't know why. This is, in fact, the principle difference between the ideologies. Liberals can't understand hard and fast principles because they "feel" not think. To liberals, the end always justifies the means. That is why Obama was able to say anything during the campaign, without retribution for contradictory statements.

Conservatism wasn't rejected yesterday, President Bush isn't conservative, nor John McCain.

My sincere hope is that Mr. Obama gets to finish his term as president. I have lived most of my life hearing the beatification of JFK, one of the worst presidents we have had. But since he was killed in office he is a martyr. The electorate has hired an utterly unqualified man to lead the most powerful nation on earth. Desperate economic times bring wars, usually large ones. America has never been more vulnerable.

"Was it over when the Germa... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Was it over when the Germans [sic bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" -- from Mr. Tea's post

"If I drank, I'd need one right about now." -- Mr. Tea

No, Mr. Tea, alcohol is the LAST thing you would ever need: clearly, you need to take good care of your brain cells.

Well said.Interest... (Below threshold)

Well said.

Interesting that the folks who elected Obama stop listening to his call for bipartisanship and coming together right after he got over 270 EVs. Whether the lefties realize it or not, they need us, because they can't tell when they've gone too far any better than conservatives can. My proofs are the elections of 1994 and 2006.

The job after any election is to figure out what the people were trying to say, and act accordingly. If your analysis does not go beyond, "I won, ergo all of my policies are correct", you get smacked down in the next election -- like 1994 and 2006.

As it turns out, the public was not fully down with the Clinton Health Plan or the Assault Weapons Ban or Don't Ask Don't Tell for the military, and the House Banking Scandal was the catalyst that reversed 40 years of Democrat House dominance. In 2004 it appears the public gave the GOP a two-year extension on security issues and the benefit of the doubt on Iraq -- which it withdrew after a couple of very hard years in 2005 and 2006, not to mention some frankly stupid and excreable behavior from GOP Congress members.

What's the lesson this time? My first thought is that the country wanted 'something different' enough to vote for Barack Obama, an fairly liberal guy who campaigned as a moderate Republican tax-cutter and a bit of an isolationist. This was not a culture war election -- the same folks who gave Barack Obama a huge popular vote edge in California appear to have passed Proposition 8. The only outfit less-liked than the Bush Administration is the Congress -- whom the public somewhat strangely endorsed with a slightly greater Democrat majority. The institution they liked less they made more like what they have said they didn't like. That one's going to take some more thought, there is likely a message there that I haven't sussed out yet.

It's a stretch to say that one ideology or the other has become dominant or is headed for the dustbin. The GOP wasn't particularly conservative in this election and the Democrats ran from the 'progressive' label like their hair was on fire. We'll have to wait and see what happens. The economic crisis was such a huge change right in the middle of the election season that it's possible that voting against the GOP Presidential candidate was in part principled and in part just a spasm to make things different.

The main theme I'v... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The main theme I've noticed so far is joyful celebrations about "the death of conservatism" and "the American people have seen through your shams" and "the dustbin of history" and "Republicans are dead" and the like.

This is part of the "hope" thing Obama duped so many with. People saying such things really hope the right doesn't launch an attack on Obama like the left launched on Bush. However, I wouldn't place any bets on that happening. Most likely the left is going to get back what they gave out.

Did Bush defeat the terrorists at least to the point they dare not attack on U.S. soil? If so, all Americans owe Bush a debt of gratitude and the left owes him an apology. If the answer is no, then Obama will be standing as some new ground zero (assuming it's not contaminated) wondering what the heck to do. I don't know the answer, but if Obama uses the military he'll do it without the 29% who stuck with Bush all the way. That means the only support he'll have for going to war are moderates and liberals, the very people who have no stomach for hardship and who will drop their support when the first body bag comes home. You know, I might just take up protesting the war in the streets. Now there's a change I'm not hoping for.

Amen, Jay Tea. My principle... (Below threshold)
sarahconnor2:

Amen, Jay Tea. My principles will not change. I intend to still defend them. The ironic thing is that people I know who are gloating the most will be the ones most negatively affected by Obama's policies. In four or eight years the shoe will be on the other foot.

My first step is to use my wallet to support my principles. If you advertise in the NY Times or LA Times or on CNN or any media center that did not provide clear, neutral stories, you will no longer be getting any of my money. Ditto any small businesses that had Obama/Biden signs in their windows. You all are welcome to support who you like but I also have a right to not support you.

My husband and I will also change our work and spending habits so that we are contributing as little as possible to programs that do not support self responsibility. We give to charity programs that do support these principles. Any of you Obama supporters who think I am just going to roll over and pay more taxes so you can get handouts are in for a nasty surprise. I have a number of friends who are already signing on to this idea.

One thing I will not do is disrespect the presidency the way liberals did for the last eight years. Another principle they could use some education about.

Conservatives had control o... (Below threshold)

Conservatives had control of Congress and the WH for years yet they failed to enact their conservative agenda. If you aren't interested in finding out why that is then you may be on the losing end of a few more elections.

If you aren't inte... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If you aren't interested in finding out why that is then you may be on the losing end of a few more elections.

We know why. If liberals aren't interested in finding out why democrats won then you may be on the losing end in the very next elections.

"Well, we certainly have a ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Well, we certainly have a lot of socialist programs around still, but FDR is long gone and our Republic has not ended." -- Frazetta_girl

Definitely not completely gone: Time Magazine's co-runner-up for Person of the Century can be seen every time one looks at a dime, a grateful nation having placed his portrait on American currency.

JayThanks T... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Jay

Thanks
The beauty of USA is that every 4 years we have the peaceful transfer of power. During that time we can engage in political discourse without fear of retribution. Some people have bemoaned life under Bush and thought he was going to fix the election or usurp authority. Hopefully they can now apologize for those viscous remarks. So I think that we can look at Obama and questions his policies and motives just like they have done. The beauty of being a conservative is having a set of standards to evaluate different things against.

I am what I am. I am the s... (Below threshold)

I am what I am. I am the same person I was yesterday. Re-evaluating myself and my principles simply based on some majority is to betray those principles I've spent a life-time building.

And yes, there are many who are being so shallow as to take some perverse glee from the imagined destruction of others. Maybe these people need to do some re-evaluating.

It's funny how JT in NH is ... (Below threshold)

It's funny how JT in NH is hearing the same crap that I am here in Indiana, from people who are celebrating Obama's victory.

These are the same people who also think Reagan was a crappy, overspending president.

Herman, you ignorant slut:<... (Below threshold)

Herman, you ignorant slut:

Go and watch "Animal House."

The full quote:

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one. Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! Otter: Germans? Boon: Forget it, he's rolling. Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!

J.

And yes, there are ... (Below threshold)
Steven Robb:

And yes, there are many who are being so shallow as to take some perverse glee from the imagined destruction of others. Maybe these people need to do some re-evaluating.

Don't forget to hold the mirror up on that one. The far right has been more devisive and obnoxious over the past 8 years than ever before. Just look at old posts on this blog the last few years.

I take no "glee" in anything destructive. I do take glee in the fact that my beliefs have been vindicated. You guys have been experts at bullying and yelling for the past 8 years. What you've done is reaped what you've sewn. And for those who will consider re-evaluating on Obama's successes, all I can say is I will stand right with you in condemnation of his failures. These guys work for us. Criticism of their performance is critical. Many didn't agree with that in regard to Bush. Democrats as a whole are less lock-step and militant about their beliefs - one of the reasons they have difficulty getting together in agreement on the simplest bills.

What I will be looking for is Obama to take a hard line with Pelosi and Reid. They are absolutely useless and need to be prodded into action.

JayI bet a dollar He... (Below threshold)

Jay
I bet a dollar Herman doesn't get "ignorant slut" either. Keep him spinning!

Well put Jay. Just as in 20... (Below threshold)
185C:

Well put Jay. Just as in 2006, I find the declarations of the death of conservatism and end of Republicans humorous. For the most part, I hear it from my extremely liberal employees. It's strange how their unhappiness with my way of thinking is briefly suspended every 2 weeks when they need their paychecks. Which may not continue for much longer if I am right about Obama...

What I will be lookin... (Below threshold)

What I will be looking for is Obama to take a hard line with Pelosi and Reid.

Good luck with that.

Hard line with Pelosi and R... (Below threshold)
185C:

Hard line with Pelosi and Reid? Ha! Obama was annointed by those two. Payback starts today, I'm sure. He doesn't even get the nomination if they didn't line up political support for him instead of Hillary. At best, he will be their puppet. Why do think Rahm Emmanuel is being tapped for Chief of Staff? (answer: to keep him in line with congress's whims) You are warned.

Mr Robb I believe you're mi... (Below threshold)

Mr Robb I believe you're misplacing the bullying and yelling from the left to the right. How many Obamas have been burned in effigy on protest marches versus Bushes? The vitriol that has been poured out for the last 8 years about George W. Bush and others in his Administration(s) is no less vitriolic now that the Democrats have won an election that history and precedent strongly suggested they would win. Has Harry Belafonte retracted his "House Negro" comments about Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I didn't think so. Hell, Andrew Sullivan still isn't convinced that Trig is Sarah Palin's child. Chew on that for a while.

I agree with you that that level of personal animosity is not helpful, but to pretend that it's not the basic currency the left blogosphere traffics in is not a serious statement.

I don't believe the left wishes ill for America. I believe that the methods they prefer to achieve equality and bounty for all will accomplish neither, and so I oppose them.

If Democrats were less lock-step and militant in their beliefs it would seem to be easier to get bills passed, BTW -- get along and go along, rather than being doctrinaire. They had trouble getting things passed because Bush finally found the veto pen after six years, and that made it more difficult to find something he and they would agree on.

Mr Robb, I believe... (Below threshold)

Mr Robb,

I believe you're misplacing the bullying and yelling from the left to the right. How many Obamas have been burned in effigy on protest marches versus Bushes? The vitriol that has been poured out for the last 8 years about George W. Bush and others in his Administration(s) is no less vitriolic now that the Democrats have won an election that history and precedent strongly suggested they would win. Has Harry Belafonte retracted his "House Negro" comments about Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I didn't think so. Hell, Andrew Sullivan still isn't convinced that Trig is Sarah Palin's child. Chew on that for a while.

I agree with you that that level of personal animosity is not helpful, but to pretend that it's not the basic currency the left blogosphere traffics in is not a serious statement.

I don't believe the left wishes ill for America. I believe that the methods they prefer to achieve equality and bounty for all will accomplish neither, and so I oppose them.

If Democrats were less lock-step and militant in their beliefs it would seem to be easier to get bills passed, BTW -- get along and go along, rather than being doctrinaire. They had trouble getting things passed because Bush finally found the veto pen after six years, and that made it more difficult to find something he and they would agree on.

This is exactly the type of... (Below threshold)

This is exactly the type of thoughtful, articulate and powerful column written with unwavering conviction that attracted me to Wizbang roughly 4 years ago, and why I keep coming back.

No doubt there will be much to talk about and discuss as history unfolds before us, and I for one hope you, Jay Tea, stay at the forefront of those discussions.

(If I drank, I'd need one right about now.)

Hey, maybe taking up alcohol can be your contribution in helping manifest "change" in this new changey hopefulness America! Your liver may hate you, but soon enough we'll have health care to cover your liver transplant, so no worries. Cheers!

6. Posted by Piso Mojado </... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

6. Posted by Piso Mojado

One question might be: What to do about the media? I think they have more up their sleeves right now.

I knew a humiliating, crush... (Below threshold)
Barrista:

I knew a humiliating, crushing defeat would not inspire any sort of deep, necessary navel gazing that usually occurs after such a loss, at least not around here. I love some of the previous comments that cannot accept simple reality that McCain lost, NOT because of the media or voter fraud or any of that shit.

McCain lost because he ran the shittiest, most low down, negative, vile smear campaign ever, and the voters soundly rejected it. Simple as that. He had no message, no vision, all he did was talk about Obama and never distinguished himself as an individual candidate.

In this election, it was Obama VS. Not-Obama and if your candidate runs like that, they will lose every time.


This is the problem with the conservative movement; you alienated all the moderates and centrists out of your party, and what's left? The unhinged angry base and as we saw last night, that doesn't win elections. Sure, it can fire up the idiots who used to go to Palin rallies and scream "Muslim socialist terrorist", but that didn't carry the middle, not even close for you guys.

Laugh all you want, or cry as some of you are doing, but you know what the GOP needs now? It's own Howard Dean.

They need someone to come in and rebuild their brand from the ground up. Someone to reorganize the whole damn machine.

The GOP needs to reinvent themselves and that means welcoming in pro-choice people, and anti-war people, and having a diverse appeal.
As long as you retreat to this bunker mentality, clinging to your bibles and shotguns, you will be just a regional fringe party that will not be in power for the next decade or so.

Which is just fine by me. I say, to hell with unity. I say, slap you losers down HARD, and keep you there, so you can grumble and groan all you want, being completely impotent and rage filled and powerless.

"I take no "glee" in any... (Below threshold)

"I take no "glee" in anything destructive. I do take glee in the fact that my beliefs have been vindicated."

Vindication is still yet to be seen. I truly wish you luck in that regard. As far as the glee, if you are not part of those taking such sick glee then your offense is misplaced.

"You guys have been experts at bullying and yelling for the past 8 years. "

"You guys"? Look, I am me. I'm not just part of some group you have labeled me as being from. As much as you take offense at some percieved personal offense by my words, you then lump me in with "you guys". I'm trying to figure out how this makes sense.

So let me get this straight. Are you bemoaning people like me who have pushed back at the incoherent shouting of "stolen election!", "nazi-brown-shirts!", and the plethora of unprovoked names I have been called personally like "loser!", and "schmuck!" simply because of disagreements I have had? Or have you forgotten the last 8 years of vile and vitriolic words and actions perpetrated by those who likely now feel it's okay because it's all been "vindicated"?

"Criticism of their performance is critical."

And that's exactly what I've done in some cases; criticized. I've even criticized those who criticize unjustly. And I've given those who offered me an opportunity to discuss issues in a civil manner the same respect. Even so, I have yet to call anyone's patriotism into question unless they have clearly manifested behavior which fits the very definition of un-patriotic. I've not called anyone a chicken hawk. I've not called Obama any names other than Obama or Barack Obama.

Yet you want to cry foul and then label me as "you guys".

"Apparently those of us ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Apparently those of us who didn't hop on the Obama bandwagon are supposed to just quietly shuffle off into corners and die quietly" -- Mr. Tea

Agreed, that is apparent (although, alas, not to you, Mr. Tea). Anyway, here's a little song just for you conservatives, to remain in your heads as you "shuffle off":

NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH
NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH
HEY, HEY, HEY
GOODBYE!!!

You'll be taking your failed, idiotic politics with you -- don't let the door hit your SORRY ASS on the way out!!!

We agree on one thing, Stev... (Below threshold)

We agree on one thing, Steven Robb, Pelosi and Reid are useless. They are obtuse and living in a world all their own. They have engaged in the very kind of language you complain of. They have no solutions. Their modus operandi is to lay blame with someone else for their own inaction or inability to come up with workable solutions. We deserve better than that. Hell, Democrats deserve better representation than that.

"I take no "glee" in any... (Below threshold)
Clay:

"I take no "glee" in anything destructive. I do take glee in the fact that my beliefs have been vindicated."

Really? An election vindicates your beliefs? Sad that.

I say, to hell with unit... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I say, to hell with unity. I say, slap you losers down HARD, and keep you there, so you can grumble and groan all you want, being completely impotent and rage filled and powerless.

Which is why you will probably always be a, er, barrista. This is also why I don't tip you.

Clay, I believe Barrista is... (Below threshold)

Clay, I believe Barrista is projecting.

I was not shocked The One w... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I was not shocked The One won. I was somewhat surprised that the Dems only picked up 5 in the Senate and 20 in the House--they underperformed, essentially, in their win.

It's not a real strong win, then, for the Dems, more of a "we're pissed at the Republicans" sort of thing.

That won't lead to the resurrection of hard-core liberalism.

So, we'll get through this Carter-II presidency, and continue to make gains as conservatives. I've no doubt.

Ha ha, I love the smell of ... (Below threshold)
Barrista:

Ha ha, I love the smell of rabid unhinged wingnut denial in the morning. Smells like victory!

Mitchell said "It's not a real strong win, then, for the Dems"

Bury your head in the sand further. It was a HUGE win for the Dems, you are just so angry and upset right now, you cannot accept this. That's ok, denial is a defense mechanism against the glaring truth that you cannot process like a car crash.

And what on earth am I projecting? It wasn't my chosen party that suffered the most humiliating crushing defeat in over 40 years was it?

Now the GOP will be smashed and broken, with 100 pieces and no one to clean up the mess.

Or, maybe, you guys will go for broke and pick Bible Spice as your saviour. Oh please, I hope you do this.

Please put her as your frontrunner to 2012. Nothing like having an empty headed cheerleader as the future of your party (snicker)

Yet you want to cry... (Below threshold)
Steven Robb:

Yet you want to cry foul and then label me as "you guys".

Didn't intend to label you directly, and for that I apologize. There are always more thoughtful posters out there. The problem is, the ranters are so loud, and have been yelling for so long, it's hard at times to look past them.

Barrista, I'm not angry. W... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barrista, I'm not angry. Where'd that come from?

I'm not the one here stridently trying to thump those who post their serious thoughts here.

C'mon man, if you're this difficult now, what would you have been like if O had lost? Frankly, you sound a little mental, dude.

Oh, and forgot to mention, ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh, and forgot to mention, all 5 anti-gay marriage intiatives won, even in liberal California.

So much for your cultural revolution, Barrista.

John Kaisch 2012... (Below threshold)
Jon:

John Kaisch 2012

I say, to hell wit... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I say, to hell with unity

Just remember, you were the one that said it.

Barrista, you are so wrong.... (Below threshold)
golonoro Author Profile Page:

Barrista, you are so wrong. It's amazing to me how you libs just don't get it.

Yeah, the dems won with Obama, and yes, we conservatives are disappointed that our candidate did not win. However, unlike you libs, we do not get "angry and upset" when we lose nor do we blame anyone other than ourselves for it.

This election was not a mandate for Obama, he won because there was not a true conservative on the ticket, the media was in the tank for him, and his campaign outspent McCain's 5-1.

Go ahead and gloat, spout your vitriol. Enjoy your moment in the spotlight, it won't last long. The GOP tsunami is coming, don't turn your back on it.

Steven Rob are you serious?... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Steven Rob are you serious? Have you monitored the left wing comments on this blog? Wow! You amaze me. ww

This is an interesting arti... (Below threshold)

This is an interesting article:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/05/notes-from-the-collapse/

Bush got 62mm votes in 2004

Obama got 63mm votes in 2008

McCain got 7mm fewer votes than Bush.....hmmm.

Obama out spent Bush and McCain combined.

Who cares about CA Prop 8? ... (Below threshold)
Barrista:

Who cares about CA Prop 8? I don't live there and I actually believe marriage is for men and women (shock horror) so I am actually kind of glad it got defeated.

I can give you your silver lining for all the gray clouds, you need something I suppose.

But, the election WAS a mandate for Obama. You can lose like a man, and you can lose like a little child who doesn't understand why he got sent to bed with no supper. Guess which one the wizbang set will go with?

Obama won with over 200 electoral votes, FL, VA, NC, IN, CO, all flipped from Red to Blue. GOP lost 5 or more Senate seats and now they are down by 70 seats in the House.

It's a CLEAR mandate, ok? That's massive. That's gotta sting.

But, deny it all you want.

PALIN 2012! WOO HOO!

"Didn't intend to label ... (Below threshold)

"Didn't intend to label you directly, and for that I apologize."

Apology accepted. Forget about it.

"The problem is, the ranters are so loud, and have been yelling for so long, it's hard at times to look past them."

By "the ranters" I can assume, by now, you mean ALL ranters, correct?

Sorry, hit the submit butto... (Below threshold)

Sorry, hit the submit button too soon. By all ranters, I'm including commentary like that of Herman and Barrista. What have they offered here but childish verbal slaps?

For anyone so foolish as to... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

For anyone so foolish as to think voters either embraced the liberal ideology or rejected the conservative ideology I have news for you. The majority of the electorate are bread and butter voters and they voted the way they did because they think Obama can deliver a better economy. If you doubt that, just look at congressman Murtha. He called his constituents racists and then in apologizing he called them rednecks, and that lost him a lot of support until he reminded them of all the pork projects he brought to the area. Last night they reelected the old fart who accuses soldiers of murder before any facts are known because he brings home the pork.

Vague promises of hope and change won't help democrats stay in power if Obama can't deliver the promised bread and butter. If Obama tries to tax energy he's going to find himself on the wrong end of the bread and butter issue. If Obama's definition of rich drops to the level some of his supporters were saying, he's going to find himself on the wrong end of the bread and butter issue. If there's a terrorist attack on U.S. soil he won't be able to use the military option like Bush did or he's going to find himself on the wrong end of the bread and butter issue. If Obama's tax on small businesses prevents a strong economic recovery he's going to find himself on the wrong end of the bread and butter issue. Once the "it's all Bush's fault" kool-aid runs out democrats are going to have to produce real bread and butter results if they expect to stay in power.

Barry won with 52% of the v... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barry won with 52% of the vote, Barrista. If that's a blowout, then that occurs in almost every race with incumbent congressmen every year, republican and democrat.

This would be the "soft bigotry of low expectations" type of blow out.

Real blow out wins, mandates look like this--Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole by a significantly greater margin and even greater relative percentage (49.25-40.71), and George Bush by a slightly lower margin, but higher relative percentage (43.01-37.45). Bush I, meanwhile, beat Dukakis by a larger margin, 53.4 to 45.6.

Suck on that egg, lunatic lefty.

Don't be an ignoramus inten... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

Don't be an ignoramus intentionally. History may not end but political movements do and yours is over. EPIC FAIL, like the Know Nothings. And it was Fukuyama, a former neocon, who wrote that book. The End of History. I say former because he isn't one anymore.

What you don't realize, sparky, is that long before you people made "liberal" a dirty word, insulting the father of this country, George Washington - a self-described liberal - "conservative" was the dirty word. It has just come full circle. Your party may survive as a regional force, kind of like the libertarians, but you are history. Better luck next time, sparky.


He was using abusive and obscene language, calling people Conservatives and all that.

As the liberal Robert Bendiner then put it: "Out of some 140,000,000 people in the United States, at least 139,500,000 are liberals, to hear them tell it ... Rare is the citizen who can bring himself to say, 'Sure I'm a conservative' ... Any American would sooner drop dead than proclaim himself a reactionary." In July, 1950, a newspaper was listing the charges against a prisoner accused of creating a public disturbance; one witness charged: "He was using abusive and obscene language, calling people Conservatives and all that."

When conservatism was still a dirty word, it seemed gallanty non-conformist to defend it against the big, smug liberal majority among one's fellow writers and professors. In those days, therefore, the author deemed it more helpful to stress the virtues of conservative thought than its faults, and this is what he did in the 1949 edition of Conservatism Revisited. But, in the mood emerging from the 1950's, blunt speaking about conservatism's important defects no longer runs the danger of obscuring its still more important virtues. (p. 123-4)

Wow barrista is deranged. T... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Wow barrista is deranged. The electoral votes matter not when considering a "mandate". Obama only had 52% of the vote. You clearly know nothing about what a mandate is.

And Herman, fat drunk and stupid is now way to go through life.

Pardon me, NO way to go thr... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Pardon me, NO way to go through life.

Thanks JT. Great article... (Below threshold)
mf:

Thanks JT. Great article as usual.

Big Hug to anyone wanting one. :-)

Hey where's the Whitey tape... (Below threshold)
Barrista:

Hey where's the Whitey tape?

How about Obama's birth certificate?

Scary Black Panthers at polling places, oh noez!

Ayersrezkowrightsocialistmuslimterroristcommie!

Ha ha! It all blew up in your faces, badly.

Mandate? Ask Larry Craig, he knows all the best airport cruising stalls.

Good luck wingnuts!

PALIN 2012!

barrista - "McCain lost... (Below threshold)
marc:

barrista - "McCain lost because he ran the shittiest, most low down, negative, vile smear campaign ever, and the voters soundly rejected it. Simple as that. He had no message, no vision, all he did was talk about Obama and never distinguished himself as an individual candidate."

Tone deaf much?

Obama's spanish language ad that was nothing more than The Big Lie and many other examples are easy to find, you chose not to.

What a *shock*.

A much clearer analysis would lead you to the conclusion the majority of obama's 52 percent bought into the "we don't need 4 more years of Bush" BS combined with an utter disregard to what Congress under the dems have done for the last two years.

As for your "anti-cheerleading" for Palin in 2012, you only wish it were true. Fact is she will have a very good shot at VP in 2012 on a Jindal/Palin ticket.

For you nutcakes cheering the "death of the conservative party" you would do well to look at the states that had conservative ballot initiatives in this election. By a large majority they passed even in states where obama won.

That should be your first clue barrista, but alas, you're obviously incapable of looking at reality.

Marc, don't even bother. It... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Marc, don't even bother. It is obvious that barrista is incapable of any rational thought or discourse.

Do you really think Sarah P... (Below threshold)
Barrista:

Do you really think Sarah Palin will EVER be remotely considered for a national ticket ever again? Did you see the exit polls? She turned people off in DROVES, dude. She was the biggest flame out in politics that I can remember, in such a condensed amount of time too. She went from 100MPH to 10 in 2 months, and the road is littered with her trash.

Are the remnants of the GOP that bankrupt for good leaders to actually consider her? You guys are in worse shape than I thought!

Jindal, not a bad idea. He could be a player in time.

But come on with Palin, she ruined McCain's ticket, badly. Just send her back to Alaska and pray you don't hear her name again.

The bottom line is that in ... (Below threshold)
Ragnar Danneskold Author Profile Page:

The bottom line is that in order to do the damage the liberals have promised WE have to cooperate.

Demanding cooperation does not guarantee it.

And many of us won't cooperate.

Already today I've heard on news programs about business closings, layoffs here, cutbacks there, the stock market fell again, bombs are already flying between Israel and Gaza, Iran has already threatened our military and Russia is already rattling her sword. I think we'll see much, much more before Jan 20.

We are indeed a free country and the next president has been elected by that freedom.

But do NOT forget the we still have the freedom to NOT participate in his plans.

Start now: get back to basics, opt out of the 'system' where possible. Plan your spending if you intend to do any before January or just stop discretionary spending all together. If you are inclined to volunteer or contribute only do so with organizations that only support YOUR priciples. SAVE your money... put it in the safe because cash is now king. I expect we'll see a sudden downturn in miltary enlistees.

Do not sanction the very thieves that NEED you more than you need them.

They got what they wanted, now let THEM figure out how to make it work.

Ragnar Danneskjold

you people made "liberal... (Below threshold)
Clay:

you people made "liberal" a dirty word, insulting the father of this country, George Washington - a self-described liberal

No dummy. It was you people who re-defined the word. Liberal meant something different when Washington was president. Classical liberalism placed a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This formed the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the classical liberals argued against direct democracy "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[Alan Ryan, "Liberalism", in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1995), 293.] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty, over a pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."[ James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787), in Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (New York, 1888)]

Sounds as though the founders were conservative, by definition.

Wow... barrista is hitting ... (Below threshold)

Wow... barrista is hitting ALL the cut-and-paste talking points.

The birth certificate, the "whitey" tape, Craig... all shot down around here.

The associations, and how disposable they were to Obama... yeah, we played them up, because to us, they mattered. And still do.

Black Panthers with paramilitary garb and weapons in front of polling places as voluntary "security" guards? DAMNED RIGHT we didn't like that, either.

Barrista obviously hasn't spent much time here in the past... and, I doubt, won't be around much longer.

J.

They wanted to play their w... (Below threshold)
Ragnar Danneskold Author Profile Page:

They wanted to play their way, so let them. Any failures from this day forward are theirs, 100%. Theirs to own, to hold, and to live. No excuses, it's now theirs.

And we want that portion of your pie that you already promised to Obambi and that he promised to us.

I for one am looking forward to the free ride that the anointed "0"ne promised. I want someone to fill my gas tank and take over my mortgage and pay my medical bills.

When do we get all our free stuff?!

Get busy liberals... you now have to provide... without our help.

Ragnar Danneskjold

And many of us won'... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

And many of us won't cooperate.

And what's new there? You've been uncooperative for two years now.

Don't want to get anything done? Want to be with John Boehner and his pathetic little crew? Well, that's not what the country is looking for.

So go ahead and pout. Throw a tantrum. Refuse to do what the country wants because of your own selfishness. Refuse to even try to find a common ground because you're so full of yourselves and your antiquated ideas.

Do it - so the rest of the country can see what ineffectual cry-babies you are and get rid of more of you in the next election.

Hansel2 said: So go ahead a... (Below threshold)
Piso Mojado:

Hansel2 said: So go ahead and pout. Throw a tantrum. Refuse to do what the country wants because of your own selfishness.

Now ain't that pot calling the kettle black after 8 years of tantrums, selfishness, and idiocy.

Palin in 2012<a hr... (Below threshold)
Piso Mojado:
"What you don't realize,... (Below threshold)

"What you don't realize, sparky, is that long before you people made "liberal" a dirty word, insulting the father of this country, George Washington - a self-described liberal - "conservative" was the dirty word."

What you don't realize, sparky, is that you have insulted the father of our country by equating him with today's 'liberal'. What a bunch of clap-trap.

No dummy. It was you peo... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

No dummy. It was you people who re-defined the word. Liberal meant something different when Washington was president. Classical liberalism placed a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty.

True. I am "no dummy". Punctuation. Commas are important.

What type of property? Personal property, sure, but oddly they altered Locke's triad of "Life, Liberty and Property," didn't they?

I'm not impressed with obscure citations from libertarian propagandists. I have several conservative historians of far greater repute and gravitas to counter such poor scholarship, not to mention the words of the several of the more important founders themselves.

Better yet, why not just define "republicanism" as the founders understood it for us all. You can use Google.

8 years of tantrums... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

8 years of tantrums, selfishness, and idiocy.

Really? Take a look at how many supported Bush when he first came to office and after 9/11. Democrats have been continuously cooperative until the last few years - and who could blame them. Your standard bearer proved to be a liar and a criminal.

Back when the republicans won the majority in the mid 90's, Bob Dole, backed by the rest of his party, came out and a day later and claimed he would stop every single bill Clinton and the Democrats decided to propose. Real nice. Nice how they valued their own need for revenge over the needs of the country.

A few years later, Gingrich threw a tantrum and shut down down the House. That to me signified the typical republican -- a childish crybaby who sees the country in their terms only with no breathing room. Well, say goodbye to that attitude or perish at your own hand.

What you don't realize, ... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

What you don't realize, sparky, is that you have insulted the father of our country by equating him with today's 'liberal'. What a bunch of clap-trap.

That's perfectly reasonable. Liberalism has a much longer tradition than conservatism and today's conservatives are nothing like the one's who joined that movement during the period of its formation. That's why so many are defecting in droves. Liberals haven't changed that much, considering the amount of time that has passed. It's over 200 years. Do you still think a black man is 3/5ths of a person?

Ok, Hansel, run along. The... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Ok, Hansel, run along. The others want to get back to "adult time." See you later.

So, give your own definitio... (Below threshold)
Clay:

So, give your own definition of classical liberalism, dummy. Remember, you're the one that said 'we' changed the definition of the term. You further ascribed the term to Washington knowing full well you're full of shit.

Our job is to now pin down ... (Below threshold)
Ragnar Danneskold Author Profile Page:

Our job is to now pin down the Leftists on specifically what they are going to DO.
It is easy to spew hate and win elections during tough economic times by blaming Bush.
But now the question is...they won,
WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO?

Oh.

President Obama's First Step: Reset Expectations

Ragnar Danneskjold

Haven't been on this site f... (Below threshold)
babsbush:

Haven't been on this site for a couple of years, and now I know why. The same right-wing complaining and blaming. You lost yesterday because you nominated a piss-poor candidate and Sarah Palin is a complete joke. Like Ronald Reagan (who didn't accomplish nearly as much as you give him credit for), Barack Obama inspires hope - something this country (and the world) have been clamoring for for eight long years. I'll check back in with you the day after Barack wins reelection in 2012!!!

All of you should pay atten... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

All of you should pay attention now, especially those proclaiming to be patriotic republicans (small r) like the founders. This is from a recent speech given by one of the most respected conservative historians of the period (Forrest McDonald, "The Founding Fathers and the Economic Order" ). It is from a right wing website most of you will recognize. Read the whole thing. Fascinating. I love history, don't you?

Granted, Americans were, by and large, a practical and not an ideological people, but they had embraced a pair of ideas that took deep roots. First was republicanism. When Americans proclaimed their commitment to republicanism as part of the reaction against George III in 1776, most did so willy-nilly without knowing what it entailed. The body of literature on the subject was large and readily found, however, and soon public figures were versed on the subject. The actuating principle of a republic was public virtue, virtue meaning manly devotion of one's self to the wellbeing of the public. The opposite of virtue was vice, meaning effeminacy, or a love of luxury.

The very idea of economic growth that inheres in a market economy was incompatible with this primary principle of republicanism. Plato, believing that relative equality of property is essential to a republic, proposed to limit inheritances and recommended that no republic be established on the sea or on a navigable river, for that "would expose it to the dangers of commerce" and the inequalities that resulted from trade. Lycurgus, "in the most perfect model of government that was ever framed," ancient Sparta, had forbidden trade altogether. And Montesquieu, whom American devoutly admired, declared that if people were allowed "to dispose of property [as they] pleased," a republic would be "utterly undone." As disparate a pair of Americans as John Adams and Benjamin Franklin agreed. Adams denounced credit as responsible for "most of the Luxury & Folly which has yet infected our People," and declared that anyone who could devise a way to abolish credit forever "would deserve a Statue to his Memory." Franklin characterized commerce as "generally cheating" and wrote bitterly of its corrupting and debilitating effects...

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=267&id=177&option=com_content&task=view


Barack Obama inspires ho... (Below threshold)
Ragnar Danneskold Author Profile Page:

Barack Obama inspires hope - something this country (and the world) have been clamoring for for eight long years

Can you eat HOPE?

Can you pay your mortgage, car insurance, college tuition or electric bill with HOPE?

Can you defend your country with HOPE?

Can you defeat your enemy with HOPE?

Can you build roads with HOPE?

Can you fund libraries, schools or hospitals with HOPE?

Can you find cures for cancer with HOPE?

Let us know how that goes for YOU.

Ragnar Danneskjold

So, give your own defini... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

So, give your own definition of classical liberalism, dummy. Remember, you're the one that said 'we' changed the definition of the term.

I said you have turned it into a dirty word, demonized it. Convinced yourself that what it means is "bad". Read Orwell, Politics and the English Language.

Read Newt's 1996 GOPAC memo:

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm


I'll give you Winston Churchill's definition, how about that? You think he's a pretty good guy, right? War Hero. Tough guy, and life long liberal.


Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be... Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly.
Winston Churchill


Or you can spend a few hours here and learn something.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

You further ascribed the... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

You further ascribed the term to Washington knowing full well you're full of shit.

No. Washington used the term to describe himself. He valued liberalism - and progress - just as Jefferson did, and most of the founders.

I am not a advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson.

Sarah Palin has the bones o... (Below threshold)

Sarah Palin has the bones of a stellar politician, which is probably at least half the reason the lefties here hate her. She's like Reagan -- only in 1969, not in 1980. For those of you who don't know his history, Reagan spent that time writing, doing brief radio addreses about the events of the day, and immersing himself in conservative issues. She needs to go to school that way as well, and if she does she has the potential to be as good as anyone on the national scene.

She's light on experience, which is a fixable problem. She came across as an attack dog this time because that's what a VP does. Unlike her co-candidate, she wanted to win. What impressed me most was the way that Lorne Michaels, Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin reacted to her. They do not agree with her, but given what they do for a living they evidence some respect for her abilities in front of a camera if you watch/read their interviews. She is genuine, enthusiastic and happy. Few politicians can communicate their joy at being an American, she can do it very, very well. Of all the things that made Reagan unique, it was this 'Happy Warrior' aspect that was the most memorable and effective.

If she can articulate the optimistic and generally happy conservative worldview she will be exceptionally dangerous to the Democrats, because for whatever combination of factors people listen when she talks. They tune in the TV in record numbers. They turn out in crowds that come close to that of Barack Obama. You can try as hard as you want to minimize her, but it didn't work when people tried to minimize Barack Obama despite the fact that he had little to say besides platitudes and bromides. He'd just been saying them for longer.

The exit polls do not suggest that she was a major negative influence. Of the 60% of people who said her presence on the ticket was an important factor in their vote, 56% of them voted for McCain.

For the math-challenged, let me explain that. Of the people who indicated that Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket was important, more than half of them voted for McCain. He did better in that segment of voters than he did overall in the election.

McCain was supposed to be the one to pull in the independents. The reason he needed Palin was that the GOP base was not behind him, precisely because he had wandered from the party orthodoxy on several issues. She did what she was supposed to do, that she was needed to shore up McCain on the right is a statement about McCain's weakness as a candidate, not hers. If McCain had picked another white male, the result would have been even more lopsided. If her numbers were lower at the end than the beginning, well, that's what eight weeks of demonization in the press will get you. Lying about things like rape kits, book lists, cutting funding for special education, etc., is going to have an effect.

What's more, her slide in the polls paralleled both the drop in the Dow and the decline in McCain's favorability ratings. The floor of the election tilted mightily toward Barack Obama when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and the stock market lost 20% of its value in a few weeks. Laugh all you want, but this year (especially after Lehman and the bailout) no GOP candidate would have won. Palin did well, and if she can address her few deficiencies will do even better next time.

Jindal would have been a good choice as well, but I'm glad he didn't get involved this year. We're holding him back from 2012.

And he's smarter than Barack Obama.

Conservator,Most o... (Below threshold)

Conservator,

Most of us know there was a flip in terminology in the 20th Century, where the progressive movement took over the moniker 'liberal'. Even today there is a difference between 'Classical liberal' (which in the United States means conservative) and 'liberal'. The distiction with the word 'Classical' is necessary because the two worldviews could not be any more different.

Milton Friedman described himself as 'liberal' throughout Capitalism and Freedom, do you believe Friedman meant that he was a progressive or what we now refer to as conservative?

Basically, take your chaff elsewhere. You're not actually messing with the SNR around here, you're just wasting bandwidth.

We should really be congrat... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

We should really be congratulating the media. They "hired" Obama to pacify(disarm).

As for Rahm Emanuel? Obama selected him for "his strong style and his fundraising prowess." Go figure.

Most of us know there wa... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

Most of us know there was a flip in terminology in the 20th Century, where the progressive movement took over the moniker 'liberal'.

Really? Was that Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party or one of the other ones? Bet you don't even know how many there have been.

Even today there is a difference between 'Classical liberal' (which in the United States means conservative) and 'liberal'. The distiction with the word 'Classical' is necessary because the two worldviews could not be any more different.

Says who?

Milton Friedman described himself as 'liberal' throughout Capitalism and Freedom, do you believe Friedman meant that he was a progressive or what we now refer to as conservative?

Milton Friedman called Nixon the most socialist of American presidents of the 20th century. I think you might be wasting the bandwidth. Milton also favored a minimum basic income to all citizens, just like Hayek, (another liberal). He called it a Negative Income Tax and we almost got it under Nixon. Amazing, huh?

Basically, take your chaff elsewhere. You're not actually messing with the SNR around here, you're just wasting bandwidth.


It's not really being used for much but grousing. I'm just doing chores around the house today and killing some time when i take a break.

;-)

Yeah. I like quoting Jeffer... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Yeah. I like quoting Jefferson too.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

"Laugh all you want, but th... (Below threshold)
gmanj:

"Laugh all you want, but this year (especially after Lehman and the bailout) no GOP candidate would have won. "

Do keep in mind, however, that the dem candidate has won the national popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections. This can't be dismissed as a mere blip.

Conservator, you can blithe... (Below threshold)

Conservator, you can blithely make claims of conservatives defecting in droves, and claim that those "droves" leaving one philosophy for another is indicative of whatever you like, it still doesn't bear any resemblance to the truth of the matter.

The truth is that liberalism, in it's earlier form was to champion the rights of the individual to freely speak their mind without repercussion, to practice what ever religion they chose openly, to own property outright without the fear of arbitrary confiscation without proper compensation and to be free of excessive taxation without representation, among many, many other things. But they all boiled down to the rights of the individual.

It was not to work as a collective for one powerful entity to distribute the fruits of one's labor to another group after they take their cut. It was not to be paid lip service about rights conferred to them by a creator and then seek, through legislation, to contest or negate them to some arbitrary degree based on "the greater good". It was not to confer more and more power to a government to dictate what values we teach our children. It was not to strip us of the opportunity to grow by learning from mistakes as the government seeks to eliminate personal responsibility by guaranteeing everyone reach the same outcome socially and financially.

Today's true conservative has taken up the mantle of championing the individual as it has been abandoned by today's liberal who strangely thinks the government can make all things well.

No sir, I would say the liberalism of today has failed and failed miserably. They've had to resort to handing even more power to the ham-fisted government to enforce their views of how the world should be. If their ideas were so profoundly right, then after spending $700 million dollars and nearly two years off hammering away with his agenda all Obama could convince was 52% to 53%? How much better was that than any other election? Negligible.

Those who call themselves conservatives, by today's definition are not at all. Those who call themselves liberals bear no resemblance to our founding fathers.

Now someone much more eloquent than I could have made these points and they would have a much stronger impact. I am limited in my debate skills. So take from it what you will. I can only hope that you at least get the gist of what I'm trying to say. Like it or leave it. But your flippant and elitist attitude tells me you don't really care. You're just acting in between house chores.

Would you describe Wilson's... (Below threshold)

Would you describe Wilson's administration of the country during WW I as 'liberal' or 'progressive'? Wilson believed himself to be a progressive, he clearly placed the needs and rights of the state above the needs and rights of the individual. Is state > individual a typical formulation of classical liberals?

Wilson's administration was the testing ground for many of the concepts that would coalesce into the New Deal a generation later, like the National Recovery Act and the corporatism that came of that. What do you think TR would have thought about government and big business colluding to keep prices high?

It would curl (or uncurl, as the case may be) the hair of most Democrats of this age to find out that Wilson did things that made the Patriot Act look like a jaywalking statute.

Do keep in mind, however... (Below threshold)

Do keep in mind, however, that the dem candidate has won the national popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections. This can't be dismissed as a mere blip.

This is a fact.

Of course, 1992 was a weird year with a half-decent third-party candidate, and we practically didn't run anybody in 1996, and this is the first year that a Dem has gone above 50% in a long, long time. Good for Obama, it saves us waiting through the inevitable lawsuits. These things are better decided by the people than by the courts.

Nevertheless, the EC is what it is. You know as well as I do that the reason the PV goes to the Democrats is that the Democrats win the hell out of the 20 most populated counties in the United States by large majorities, which gives them large overages in the Blue States. The margins in CA, IL and NY are most of the winning margin in the popular vote, California alone is about a third of Obama's popular vote margin.

Another issue creeping along is that the number of people who pay income taxes has been steadily decreasing. GWB took another 10 million off the tax rolls with his rate cuts. At present, the lowest 40% of tax filers by income pay 3% of income tax. We're not far away from a statistical majority (>50%) of voters paying nothing or near-nothing in income taxes. Once that occurs, it's in their best interest to use their majority to extract as much in governmental goods & services as the minority who pays personal income taxes can bear.

That will not be a good day.

Yeah. I like quoting Jef... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

Yeah. I like quoting Jefferson too.
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

If you quote him but don't understand him, you are no more than a parrot.

You obviously don''t or you'd have real problems with Bush and John Yoo's theories on the unitary executive.

The truth is that libera... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

The truth is that liberalism, in it's earlier form was to champion the rights of the individual to freely speak their mind without repercussion,

No! You don't say? Sounds just like the current GOP and movement conservatism, don't it?

Sorry. You spent a considerable time on that comment but I stopped reading when i got to that part and spewed coffee all over my monitor.

It would curl (or uncurl... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

It would curl (or uncurl, as the case may be) the hair of most Democrats of this age to find out that Wilson did things that made the Patriot Act look like a jaywalking statute.

It is quite disconcerting to deal with people who have no concept of historical context or even a basic understanding of American history but often claim they are the sole keepers of the one true history (mostly a myth). There was no SCOTUS around during the break with England when the Quakers were often arrested and jailed or worse. Google Quakers jailed during the Revolutionary War (it was really a civil war). Then there were Alien and Sedition Acts, Jackson's Indian Removal Act, The second Civil War, etc. By those standards, George W. Bush is a true progressive - in 1917!

The truth is th... (Below threshold)
Conservator:

The truth is that liberalism, in it's earlier form was to champion the rights of the individual to freely speak their mind without repercussion...

That's still liberalism today. We don't "remove" you if you don't look right.

"The Public be Damned" is a good description of the McCain campaign's treatment of their own supporters if they don't look right. You guys have some serious soul searching to do. I'll leave you to it.

Pre-emptive ejection: Audience members removed at McCain rally in Cedar Falls

Audience members escorted out of Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., campaign event in Cedar Falls questioned why they were asked to leave Sunday's rally even though they were not protesting.

David Zarifis, director of public safety for the University of Northern Iowa, said McCain staffers requested UNI police assist in escorting out "about four or five" people from the rally prior to McCain's speech.

Zarifis said while the people who were taken out weren't protesting or causing problems, McCain's staff were worried they would during the speech.

"Apparently, they had been identified by those staffers as potential protesters within the event," Zarifis said. "The facility was rented by the RNC for the McCain campaign, so it's really a private facility for them. We assisted in their desires to have those people removed."

Lara Elborno, a student at the University of Iowa, said she was approached by a police officer and a McCain staffer and was told she had to leave or she would be arrested for trespassing.

"It was a very confusing, very frustrating situation," Elborno said. "I said that I had a right to be there, I wasn't doing anything disruptive -- I was sitting, waiting for the rally to start."

She said McCain staffers wouldn't tell her why she was being asked to leave and when she got outside, she saw "a group of about 20 people" who had all been asked to leave.

Elborno said after seeing the people who were asked to leave, she was concerned that McCain's staffers were profiling people on appearance to determine who might be a potential protester.

"When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked," Elborno said. "It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic."

Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave....

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/articles/2008/10/28/news/local_news/doc49068f6ccce49245010961.txt

"That's still liberalism to... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"That's still liberalism today. We don't "remove" you if you don't look right."

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America." he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. "Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Those are the plans whether we like it or not. Do you really think it matters if we "look right"?

Conservator, you need a bre... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Conservator, you need a break, buddy. You're constant carping on this thread makes you look weak. Certainly your arguments are.

Typical right wing rant. We... (Below threshold)
Joel Harris:

Typical right wing rant. Well written but devoid of content. What ideals do you hold? What principles, what beliefs? The soon to be ex-president did great damage to our country. Can you recognize that? Did you even notice?

Jeff, i spelled it out a wh... (Below threshold)

Jeff, i spelled it out a while ago, but I probably should have linked to that article:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/05/12/i-yam-what-i-yam.php

Thanks for the reminder.

J.

Conservator, I'm glad you'v... (Below threshold)

Conservator, I'm glad you've had such great fun attempting to lord it over anyone who holds certain ideals (meaning those that made the US great, great enough that people risk their very lives to be here) and holding them in such contempt because they aren't enlightened in a fashion that suits your sensibilities.

"We don't "remove" you if you don't look right." And "we" have some serious soul searching to do? Your attempt to equate "we", meaning me or just generally anyone here you disagree with, with the situation you link to is duly noted, sir.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy