« The Knucklehead of the Day award | Main | "My Daddy Was Killed"; Can you help McKinnzie Bewley? »

The Republican Primaries 2008: What Went Wrong?

Congratulations to Senator John McCain, who clinched the 2008 Republican Party Nominee for President of the United States last night, yet who is also a man disliked by a significant portion of the party and a man who generates enthusiasm less often than a year-old box of corn flakes. McCain's advocates fall into three broad categories; those who emphasize his war credentials and ignore his record on other issues, those who are afraid of the Democrats' nominee and want a Republican in the White House, any Republican, and so are willing to settle for McCain, and those who actually like censorship of political speech during an election, for a minority of the Senate to decide the fate of judicial nominees, and for the Global Warming Ponzi Scheme to be allowed to constrain business and rob taxpayers. How on earth did the Party of Ronald Reagan come to this?

I think a lot of this started early. Back in 2005, Patrick Ruffini ran a straw poll about GOP candidates, and I called him on a number of wrong claims and false statements. It was, in short, an informal shoot-the-bull poll with no value beyond a very local barometer of the moment, just as my occasional polls here should not be taken to represent the nation. But I called Ruffini on his attempt to play his poll into something it was not. The reason I bring up that dead cat carcass again, is because even there, I warned that Ruffini was pushing a false image, in his case the viability of Giuliani. It's not that Rudy was a horrible choice, but that pushing him so early in a poll which closed off some far more conservative possibilities displayed the problem we saw this spring, a set of choices created by non-Conservatives, yet forced on Conservatives. Do you want the really liberal RINO, or perhaps the only-sometimes-RINO? Ruffini has inconsiderately moved or deleted his 2005 poll from his archives, so I cannot recite his list of options, but I can safely advise the public that Senator Fred Thompson, Secretary of State Condi Rice, Governor Jeb Bush, and other leading Conservative voices were - oh so conveniently - left off the poll. Not to belabor Mr. Ruffini too much, as he has every right to speak for the milktoast Republicans when he feels so inclined, but even from the start, Republicans were shown polls and surveys with no meat on the menu. There was, I will say bluntly, no seat at the table for a Reagan Republican.

[ -- continued -- ]

There were, of course, a few plays for the Conservatives. There are so many Conservatives, that some GOP candidates would surely try for their support. Fred Thompson said the right things, but sadly he missed the crest of support in mid-2007, and by the time he started moving, he was too far behind, in media attention, campaign funds, and in developing his grassroots network. Mitt Romney also played up his newfound Conservatism, but he failed to convince enough Conservatives that he was the real deal. Same problem with Huckabee; the rhetoric just did not square with his record. McCain took the contrary path. Seeing that Conservatives were split, unable to find anyone who really reflected their ideals and priorities, he decided not to chase their support in the primaries, and instead made them his target, successfully drawing support from outside the party even as he chased the party's mantle. The hypocrisy of such a strategy does not appear to bother Senator McCain.

So here we are; the Democrats are enemies of Conservatism, and now so is the Republican Party's nominee. Fortunately, we are not bereft of hope. In a statement sure to be sneered at by non-Conservatives, I believe most devoutly that God Almighty favors most Conservative Ideals, and just as Ronald Reagan arrived to bring back America's greatness after Carter's disastrous term, I believe that our movement will yet again regain its support and strength. But Reagan had to wait for his moment, and before him Barry Goldwater was a true Conservative who never got to set foot in the promised land of a Conservative America. With McCain, Clinton, or Obama in the White House for at least four years, this nation will suffer for at least that long. The sole mitigation will be those Conservatives in the House and Senate, whose backbones and nerve will sorely be tested by the new reigning coalition of Liberals, Quislings, and McCainiacs. This crucible, though, may be the testing ground for the next Reagan.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (39)

The Republican Primaries... (Below threshold)

The Republican Primaries 2008: What Went Wrong?

Nothing really, from a party standpoint. The Republican Party, despite its base, managed to nominate the strongest candidate among the contenders, as far as winning the general election is concerned.

All the other Republican candidates would have been destroyed in the general by Obama or Clinton. If Obama is the nominee, McCain's support from independents and even some Democrats will eat away at Obama's advantage, and his support in the southwest and among Hispanics will help him if Clinton gets the nomination. He certainly has disadvantages, but less than any of the other candidates (and I like Thompson, but come on, he's no Reagan).

I don't discount a media wh... (Below threshold)

I don't discount a media who showed prefference in amount and topics of coverage.

At the same time don't discount so-called finance reform as well.

In the past Senators had a hard time becoming president. This time out they made up the bulk for the front runners. The exceptions were a millionaire governor, a governor who stumped on being religious, and a congressman who appealed to any wacko group he could find.

Now we're down to just Senators. And this is not a coincidence. Campaign finance laws give them a huge advantage. And by coincidence one of major authors of those laws happens to be one of the remaining candidates.

One could ask the same "wha... (Below threshold)

One could ask the same "what went wrong" question about the Democrats as well. This was supposed to be a long and glorious coronation for Queen Hillary; the other candidates were there only to give the illusion that this was some kind of "race." And yet Hillary is having trouble pulling 50% of the grassroots vote. Her main rival is actually ahead of her in raw votes and in convention delegates. She lost some states by 20% or greater margins. What happened?

With regard to God, well ... an holistic reading of the Bible provides us with a very clear understanding of His "ideals"; you can find a good encapsulation in Micah 6:8 - "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Deuteronomy 10:17-19 is enlightening as well - "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."

If you think that Reagan conservatism is founded upon those ideals above all else, well, more power to you.

The Rockefeller wing won. ... (Below threshold)

The Rockefeller wing won. The RNC won.
McCain is another Dole. It was his turn.

I don't think McCain is rea... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I don't think McCain is really going to be all that bad.

I've always loved Ann Coulter, but her credibility has droped to equal that of a leftist journalist lately (pretty damn close to zero). I hope that doesn't happen to you too, DJ.

While McCain's ACU ratings might have been a little on the low side in recent years, they've never been below 60 and his lifetime rating is 82.3-- not too shabby. (Bill's wife gets a 9, and BO an 8).

Than again, immigration is not a big issue with me and I think in retrospect the "Gang of 14" was probably the best option at the time. Sure campaign finance was a horrible bill, and the anti-AGW legislation is a stupid waste, (but it will get a lot of independents who are ignorant on the subject to vote for him).

Really though, its a "big tent" sort of thing and the extreme consevatives are just being childish and unwilling to acknowledge that McCain fits in the Republican tent with room to spare.

The communists (oops! I mean progressive liberals) were quite successful in taking complete control of the Democrat Party and squelching opposing ideas, but I think the Republican party is stronger than that and will not allow itself to be completely controlled by etreme conservatives, so to Ann, Rush, and rest of you: Just get over yourselves already!

Do you want someone who is 82% conservative or someone who is 9%?

I might vote for McCain, Pa... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I might vote for McCain, Paul. That doesn't mean I have to overlook his stink.

I'm hoping that he'll have ... (Below threshold)

I'm hoping that he'll have a VP who is a strong conservative and has a future as McCain's successor.

The Thunder Run has linked ... (Below threshold)

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/05/2008 A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

I'm no fan of McCain as a p... (Below threshold)

I'm no fan of McCain as a political leader for two reasons. First, of course, are the apostasies mentioned by most conservatives (BCFRA, Go14, McCain-Kennedy) and the disturbing fact that he always seems willing to "reach across the aisle" in a way which throws the conservative position overboard and adopts the liberal one.

The second reason is his tendency to savage conservatives when they disagree with his positions. The guy can get downright nasty - he takes his politics very personally.

But it is nonsense to call McCain a "RINO" with his voting record and his performance in the primaries. Let's face it: the pedigreed conservative candidates in the field never attracted any real support at all - at least not at the level of making them contenders. It's a bit presumptuous for conservatives to throw around "RINO" tags when it appears, from the actual election results, that it is WE who are the distinct minority in the Republican Party.

The moderate-conservatives and moderates are in charge. Surprise! They have been since Reagan's second midterm in 1986. Conservatives will go along for the same reason we stuck with GHWB in 1988 and W in 2000: the leftist alternative is far worse for the country than the center-right offerings of the GOP establishment.

For it is the Democrats who are under the full control of their ideological strain these days, not the GOP. Notice how NONE of the many Democratic Presidential candidates offered a strong foreign policy, how NONE can go off the plantation on any issue, how even the bipartisan free trade policy which was the cornerstone of our economic diplomacy in the post-WWII era is so readily abandoned by them all in order to cater to the far Left.

Exactly Jim Addison. I was... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Exactly Jim Addison. I was trying to make that point, but you did a much better job of it.

As I said at the start:... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

As I said at the start:

"McCain's advocates fall into three broad categories; those who emphasize his war credentials and ignore his record on other issues, those who are afraid of the Democrats' nominee and want a Republican in the White House, any Republican, and so are willing to settle for McCain ..."

You just proved my point.

DJ is sounding like a mirro... (Below threshold)

DJ is sounding like a mirror of the Kos Kids, hoping that

"With McCain, Clinton, or Obama in the White House for at least four years, this nation will suffer for at least that long."

The only way DJ can think of gaining power back is through the suffering of Americans. Congratulations.

Tell me what the difference between you and the Kos Kids, who openly call for Americans to be killed, and the economy to tank, so Democrats can regain the White House, is?

Kinda gets me back to think... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Kinda gets me back to thinking about how this two party system sucks. Three would be a little better, but 5 or 7 relatively equally viable parties would be so much better.

If that were the case, for any piece of legislation to pass it would have to acceptable to a coalition of multiple parties.

Still, I don't see the McCain nomination as something that "went wrong". Now, had Ron Paul or Guiliani got the nomination, then something would have gone wrong.

Nice try sam, but that's <b... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Nice try sam, but that's your slime, not mine. I observed that we are headed for a bad patch, I never said or implied that it was desirable. I did say that the rough times might produce the kind of leader we need, but that is an historical observation. Find someone who knows History and ask them about Reagan in the 70s, Churchill in the 30s, or Billy Mitchell before Pearl Harbor.

If all you can do is try - weakly and stupidly - to compare Conservatives with psychotics, simply because we are warning you about where your play-along politics are taking the nation, that's a really sad statement on your critical thinking and moral judgment.

I wish people would appreci... (Below threshold)
Not Tony:

I wish people would appreciate that McCain is the perfect candidate:

1. He's telegenic, personable, able to get along with the media and attract the middle, and

2. 72


Can anybody say "VP Duncan Hunter"?

Here's part of what went wr... (Below threshold)

Here's part of what went wrong;

How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide By JB Williams

Who Hijacked the Primaries? by Brett Winterble

The Death of Conservatism? 43 Mistakes and the GOP's Dobson's Choice

GOP Leads Astray

John "Juan" McCain

Another amusing thing is th... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Another amusing thing is that with McCain you are much more likely to get a united nation than with any other candidate who ran.

A large percentage of the ignorant Obama supporters say that one of the main things they like about him is that he will "unite the country". How stupid is that? Obama is farther to the left then even Bill Clinton! He will be even more divisive then Clinton or the disingenuous impression of Bush that the media created is currently. Sorry BO supporters, but meaningless rhetoric and empty platitudes do not a uniter make.

Now I'd never expect the left to have the maturity or intellectual honesty to recognize this, but I was hoping for better from the far right.

The Dems have been the pere... (Below threshold)
Gary Gulrud:

The Dems have been the perenial populist party opposed by first the Federalists, then the Whigs now the GOP.
They get to remain a grab-bag of conflicted interests and factions all crying out for the helping hand of enlightened government.
The GOP now seeks only to serve the same impulse.
It seems to those of us on the outside that the one uniting factor of a new opposition party is government reform.
What went wrong with this primary season is that there are two major parties vying for the same turf.
What we need is to create a party to pursue the outsiders' interests and hope to win the House down the road and luck into the Presidency while the iron is still hot.

'United' to what end, Paul?... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

'United' to what end, Paul?

I'm sure a Democrat President could get real popular by promising all sorts of things that - in the short run - sound just great. That's actually the Obama platform, I believe.

Doing what is right is not always popular. But it matters, sir, it always matters.

I was hoping for better from a Republican.

Sorry, DJ. Don't buy your ... (Below threshold)

Sorry, DJ. Don't buy your rationalization. The only way you can think of the resurgence of Conservatism is through interim suffering. No amount of moral preening can change your assertion. God forbid, if McCain, or Clinton, or Obama, prove to be a success, where would you be? You are proving to be nothing more than the mirror image of the DailyKos inhabitants, a bunch of sore losers whose pet theories, policies and candidates are not selling.

Repeating a lie does not ma... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Repeating a lie does not make it true, sam. It's not improving your argument, either.

United to what end?<p... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

United to what end?

Let me go all Barack on you for a couple seconds:

"United we stand, divided we fall."

"A house divided against itself cannont stand."

The left and the press has been very successful in dividing this country over the Iraq war. I'm sure you're aware of the dire consequences American suffered when the left lost Vietnam in favor of the communists. A much worse fate awaits us if they succeed in their plans to loose Iraq in favor of the Islamofascists.

If we are not united we will not defeat Islamofascism.

Another example is the "Gang of 14". Nothing was getting done. McCain and his gang caused things to get done. Not everything, but a lot. Had the Reps "gone nuclear" in that instance more good would have been done in the short term, but should the worst case senario happen this fall and the neo-comms keep control of the House and Senate, and gain the White House the consequences of that course of action would have been dire.

Uniters try to do what is best overall, not what is best for them personally. That's how this government is supposed to work. And if we had and honest & unbiased press, it would.

Paul, the only thing the 'G... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Paul, the only thing the 'Gang of 14' accomplished, was that it locked out 3 qualified judges from even getting a vote. The Democrats, at that time, could not prevent the vote unless key Republicans caved.

Aside from the injustice and the sheer slimery of the move, why are you comfortable with a few Senators working to prevent nominees from even getting a vote? Up or down, win or lose, the system itself was violated by these people.

Gang rape is popular with everyone present, but the victim. We should not use that logic to do the same to the U.S. Constitution.

DJ, the Dems were blocking ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

DJ, the Dems were blocking many, many qualified judges, not just three. The "gang" agreement allowed most of those judges to get votes while blocking the vote on only 3 of them.

At the time, there were 3 options. The first was to do nothing and let the Dems continue block votes on hundreds of qualified judges.

The second was change the rules so the Dems couldn't block votes. A lot of people on the right were in favor of this, but I don't think they were considering the consquences of this action. Specifically, had the Reps done this, there would be no way for the Reps to block the typical far left fascist judges that a future Dem president would surely nominate to a future Dem controlled Senate. That would have been a dire situation.

And the third option was the compromise of the 14 that McCain lead. I admit I didn't like it at the time, but in retrospect it was the best plan in those circumstances. And it was a compromise not a gang rape. We didn't get everything, but we got a lot.

Would you have preferred option 1 or 2?

False premise, Paul. Remem... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

False premise, Paul. Remember how Reagan got things done, even with a Democrat Congress? Ron went over their heads to the people, with a moral argument that compelled action. If you think about it, that's why Congress really voted for the war in Iraq: There was no way to logically argue against it.

What happened with the Gang of 14, no matter how you spin it, was a group of Senators taking control where they had no authority under the Constitution, and thereby subverting the Constitution. At that point, it does not matter what they wanted to accomplish, because the means were corrupt.

I disagree with the claim that this was the 'only way' to get those judges confirmed; their qualifications and a strong moral defense would have broken the barrier. Instead, good judges were cheated and so were the American people, and worst of all it was all done in a way which everyone knew was unethical and which subverted the Constitution. As a result, McCain helped set a precedent which further weakened the Constituion and the credibility of the Republican Party.

The constitution says nothi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

The constitution says nothing about fillibusters. That is a Senate rule, not a constitutional law. The Constitution only states that the President's judicial nominees must get the consent of the Senate. It doesn't specify that every single nominee get an up or down vote. The Constitution left it up to the Sentate to set their own rules as to how they would give their consent. The Senate, not the Constitution, decided to create the filibuster, thereby giving the minority a way to block that consent.

Nothing McCain and the compromise of the 14 did, in any way subverted or weakened the Constitution. Get it? The Senate's rules and the Constitution are not one in the same.

Now you propose as a fourth option, pulling a Reagan and going over the Dems and press and directly to the American public. The only way THAT could have happened would have been for there to have been a Republican who could be a Reagan and do it. So who do think could have pulled that off? Do you really think Bush could have? If not him, then who?

If you can't think of anyone (I surely can't) then this forth option you've proposed was not a viable option at all. It is more like an Obama speech-- it sounds good, but there no real substance to it because there is no way it would have worked in the real world.

More crap and you know it, ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

More crap and you know it, Paul. The Constitution says the Senate is to 'advise and consent' on nominees, and only a Democrat could take that to mean 'hey, let's make a back room deal and avoid a debate and vote'.

McCain cheated, and there's no getting past that.

As I said and you ducked, we should get better than that from Republicans.

There was no way to "logica... (Below threshold)

There was no way to "logically" argue against the Iraq war? What, like, deductively, with truth-tables or Venn diagrams or some such other tool?

Logic means something other than the way you use it, and while its transcendental foundations will withstand your abuse of its meaning, it doesn't make you seem any less ridiculous when you impose its rigor on something inherently inductive, like whether or not it's a good idea to invade a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to Western civilization. That conversation had everything to do with politics and rhetoric, and nothing to do with conceptual analysis or deductive reasoning. (Hence, the invasion.)

You're sloppy when you're upset, Paul. I hate to see what you'll be writing when a moderate POTUS is elected and does a perfectly acceptable job managing the affairs of your country.

Paul?... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:


Your sense of the facts sur... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Your sense of the facts surrounding the invasion, matthew, appears to me to be as incorrect as your cognition of who made the statement in the first place.

I disagree with this notion... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

I disagree with this notion being pushed on the left that our strongest candidate has been McCain, and he has been chosen despite our base.

It sounds like a lot of projection if you ask me. I think the libs only say that because he is the only one on the ticket that they actually liked, but know their full-blown libs (obama, clinton) will wipe the floor with him, so it doesn't matter.

A real Conservative leader that can teach and explain conservatism as he or she campaigns would have been our strongest candidate. DJ was right when he said above that we were handed an empty plate, or rather not even asked to the table this year. Many conservatives wanted Thompson, and alot of others were splintered amongst candidates for certain single-issues. The bottom line is that Fred Thompson wasn't as prominent as we would have liked him to be. His presence wasn't as commanding as it needed to be. He was too laid back and laisez-faire. I think he would have been the best general election candidate would he have gotten fired up. If he had gotten fired up early, he would have had an excited base of support and a stronger movement that would have decimated McCain in the primary. I think McCain is our worst candidate because he stands for nothing.

McCain will lose in the fall. Why would anyone vote for liberal-lite when they could have the real thing from Obama or Hillary?

What dave W said.... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

What dave W said.

I think the issue of there ... (Below threshold)

I think the issue of there only being 3 judges blocked could have as much to do with the President curbing nominations since the process was effectively locked up by the Gof14.

I can't believe that you ar... (Below threshold)

I can't believe that you are using a god argument to justify your arguments. Frankly, to claim that your god supports your beliefs and doesn't support the "other side's" beliefs implies a weak argument that can't stand on its own. (Afterall, if god was interested in those beliefs, why didn't he make it so that a more conservative candidate could win?)

What you need to realize is that the country has a lot more people than the republican base (i.e. the republican base and the democrat base are minorities), and the republican candidate needs to figure out how to convince them to vote as well.

Now, an argument can be made that McCain is not the right candidate to achieve that. But I think he has a better chance to do that than some ultra-conservative candidate would.

Lastly, you need to start thinking about what you can do to make sure that McCain wins the election. Regardless of how you feel about him, the alternative of Clinton or Obama is far worse, and no amount of praying to your god is going to fix that.

Wow D.J.,"and o... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Wow D.J.,

"and only a Democrat could..."

I've made several points in this thread and instead of refuting them, you've ignored most of them. And those that you did address were addressed repeatedly by pretty much saying the same thing in different ways and adding nothing new to the discussion other than an unfeasible idea. But I'm like a Democrat?

Let me put it this way:

1) The constitution says "consent". It does not specify the method the Senate may choose to give or withhold it's consent. (You seem to want it to say that it specifies a up or down vote for every nominee which it clearly doesn't, but I'm like a Democrat?)

2) The framers left it up to the Senate and the House to decide for themselves how they would conduct their business, the only exception to that (that I can think of) being that the Vice President would break a tie vote.

3) Sometime, a long ago the Senate set up rules that allowed for a filibuster to protect the rights of the minority. It was a very wise decision that I respect. This is a Senate rule, it is not a Constitutional law.

4) It became a long standing tradition in the Senate that Judicial nominees would not be filibustered. This was a tradition, not a rule and definitely nowhere in the Constitution.

5) Now in the recent past, the Republicans did break this tradition on a handful of rare extreme cases (And I know if there's any neo-comms or their enablers still reading this thread we'll get tons of links refuting that- but I let it stand on its own merit), but when George Bush became President, the Dems made it standard operating procedure and were blocking a whole bunch of judges.

6) So now we look at the options to get these judges "consented". (a) change the rules (b) find a compromise. (Yeah you did give an option (c), go over their heads like Reagan did, but sadly that option exists outside of reality given the circumstances, but I'm like a Democrat?)

7) Option A could come back and bite us big time.

8) Like it or not, "Back room deals" are "politics"! They have been since Adam & Eve's grandchildren!

8) Compromise is a good thing. Since the gang of 14 there have been no further filibusters plus Roberts and Alito. It's worked pretty damn well so far. If it stops working then it nullifies itself anyway.

9) You are trying to make a Constitutional crisis out of an issue of senate rules

That's how I see it, point by point. Where, specifically, am I wrong?

My bad, DJ.Regardl... (Below threshold)

My bad, DJ.

Regardless of what happens, who wins/loses, whose ideology takes a shit-kicking, it's still the best time to be a human being in Western history. Liberals survived the past 8 years, and learned a lot. Now it's your turn. And the Earth will continue to rotate around the Sun.

jpm: "I think the issue ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

jpm: "I think the issue of there only being 3 judges blocked could have as much to do with the President curbing nominations since the process was effectively locked up by the Gof14. "

Since the gang of 14 there have been no further filibusters plus Roberts and Alito. It's worked pretty damn well so far. If it stops working then it nullifies itself anyway.

(sorry to repeat myself there, but it was what I would have said anyway.)

Matthew: "I hate to see ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Matthew: "I hate to see what you'll be writing when a moderate POTUS is elected and does a perfectly acceptable job managing the affairs of your country."

You're 180 degrees from the truth here Matthew.

I'm the one supporting the moderate for POTUS. You'd prefer Clinton or Obama because you believe in pure socialism and Clinton and Obama are pure socialists so from your perspective they are in the center or moderate. (The same being true of a large percentage of the inmates at our higher indoctrination centers.)

The reality is that they are far, far to left. Obama is at least 92% socialist and Clinton is 91%.

Now McCain does have a lifetime rating of 82% anti-socialist, but in recent years he's been more in the 60's and that, my Canadian friend is not far from the actual center, not the center as you perceive it. (And even at 82%, he's 200% closer to the center than Clinton and 225% closer than Obama.) With either Obama or Clinton's wife you'll get nothing different than what we had with Bill Clinton. They're both to the left of him so it'll most likely be worse. Not that I'd expect you to understand what that time was like as you were even younger back then and lived in a different country, but it was bad.

If any candidate has a chance of being one who unites, it will be McCain. It probably was all along (I mean of the original 20 or so), it just took me a while to see it. This is a pivotal time in human evolution and a moderate President who can re-unite our country is critical (See # 22).

#22Well said Paul!... (Below threshold)


Well said Paul! give My regards to Babe.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


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