Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Salena Zito :: Townhall.com Columnist
Remapping the Red and Blue
by Salena Zito
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If you wonder why Barack Obama did not try to compete in West Virginia, his dismissal of the Mountain State had nothing to do with giving Hillary Clinton one last hurrah.

The fact is, come November, West Virginia will not be on Obama's list of states to visit before Election Day.

Why ignore an all-time swing state, one no Democrat since 1916 has lost and gone on to win the presidency?

Because, as former Democratic National Committee chairman Mark Siegel explains, “West Virginia is not central to the new electoral map that will guide Obama's win in November.”

Forget the Republican red-Democrat blue map the American electorate has followed since the 2000 presidential race between George Bush and Al Gore – all that has changed. Thanks to President Bush’s disapproval ratings and a “change” election year, a whole new electoral map will be drawn this fall.

Siegel says that not only do Democrats think they have a shot at traditional red-state Virginia, they will win it. “We will be highly competitive in Colorado as well as Nevada and New Mexico,” he explains, adding that Iowa is probable as well.

Democrats also have a real shot at Missouri, he predicts, “and for reasons I do not yet fully understand, Georgia is on our radar.”

Georgia? Shades of Zell Miller! Has the whole electoral map gone crazy?

Republican strategist John Weaver, who concedes the GOP is in trouble in Georgia, says the only thing that changes an electoral map is a blow-out. “And that is what worries me.”

Weaver warns that what happened in Mississippi last week – a special-election House seat going Democrat – will not stay in Mississippi. In fact, he is pretty blunt: “This does not take rocket science. We have a malaise in our party, we have disillusion in our base, so our base turn-out efforts are going to be lower. All this affects the red-blue map.”

Electoral maps are rooted in culture and tradition, so for a dramatic color change to happen takes something like a Ronald Reagan-style 1980 victory.

Democrats had an opportunity in 1964 to achieve a sweeping change but, as Lyndon Johnson prophesized the day he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not so much. Richard Nixon changed the map in 1972 with his “Southern strategy,” but Watergate neutralized that for Gerald Ford in 1976.

Siegel says demographics are rapidly moving away from Republicans “and they know it. That's one of the reasons they are so concerned about the new registration figures pouring in.”

The GOP has good reason for grave concern: A few years ago, young people registered 50-50 as Democrats or Republicans; now, it's 2-to-1 Democrat. Hispanics, the fasting-growing voting bloc, are blue and becoming bluer.

Political scientist Larry Sabato has said consistently that the vast majority of blue states will stay blue and the vast majority of red states will stay red in November. “This is the silly season, when McCain claims he’ll be competitive in California and Obama swears he’ll take Georgia and Mississippi,” Sabato says. “Well, no.”

While Obama may change the map by picking up New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, Sabato explains, McCain has a better-than-average shot at taking Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Oregon, Wisconsin and maybe Ohio and Michigan.

“Let’s remember that the veep choices may turn a state for each candidate,” he adds, “a state not on either list.”

Still, Weaver thinks that, “without a doubt,” Obama has the ability to win in November.

“I hope and pray that he doesn’t,” he says, “but it is damned near impossible to elect the party in office to a third term in good times, much less when you have a president that is at Richard Nixon numbers.”

If Republicans squander any opportunity to make headway among independents, conservative Democrats and disillusioned Republicans, look for a really blue map to unroll on election night in November.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Salena Zito is a political analyst, reporter and columnist.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
It is instructive that.....
...all three of the Democrats who have recently unseated Republicans in special elections had the following planks in their platforms:

1) Pro life
2) Reduced taxation
3) Strong national defense
4) Strong measures to reduce/eliminate illegal immigration

These aren't left-wing Democrats! These are Republicans in Democratic clothing!

As a lifelong Republican, I have voted for only two Democrats....Zell Miller and Sam Nunn. Both would be the "Blue Dog" Democrats of today.

Republicans must run on conservative principles and stop attempting to be almost as "cool" as the lefties.

I remain,

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

As a republican I am dismayed
by recent trends. I believe that eventually W. will be vindicated as Truman was vindicated. The public must be reminded that recessions are cycical; we have been protected from terrorism and that the Demos are aiders and abetters of terrorists, especially Barry Hussein Obama and Mommy Pelosi. Also, gay marriage is back as an issue.

Conservative candidates need not apply
The country is definitely moving left but is not ready to elect far left candidates (Barack no, Hillary yes). Conservative candidates should find new careers. The US will be mostly socialist within 20 years. McCain, however, is a middle candidate and should win just under 300 electoral votes and become our next POTUS. He will be in for one term and it will be the last time a POTUS with an "R" after his name will win.

SteveL
You confuse the fact that conservatives voted for Bush - and conservative principals. Which is my point. Conservative principals are sound and sensible - not radical nor far right. Bush did not buy into those principals, which is why he isn't a conservative. There was increasing dissatisfaction with Bush in the 04 election, but Conservatives were reluctant to vote for Kerry, much as they dislike Obama today, and they didn't want to abandon Bush on Iraq. Ironically, little has changed - even when one substitutes McCain for Bush and Obama for Kerry. It isn't about conservatives - it's about candidates. The two party system isn't working well. Conservatives failed to nominate a candidate that represented their views, and are now stuck with McCain. The Democrats and the money focussed on Hillary, rather than any number of more moderate governors - which caused them not to run, and Obama slipped in precisely because there were a lot of Democrats who wanted to be rid of the Clintons, and because Obama mastered internet fundraising and bypassed the traditional sources of party money to fund his campaign.

Conservatives have not, after all, had anyone to vote for and still don't. McCain and the GOP have shifted to the left, but Obama appears to be even further left. So, they compromise, and that compromise makes it appear that they actually support these candidates when, if fact, they would never vote for any of them - if they had a choice. But they don't.

Many people, in turn, have been confused by Bush, Rove and the GOP leadership. They have manipulated the term "conservative" in order to serve their own ends. So, you and those like you keep claiming that conservatives support McCain. However, they don't. They are simply voting for the least objectionable candidate.

Iraq and Economy..
..are causing GOP brandname to stink.

In some ways they're connected.

Doesn't matter if Democrats voted for the war. It was ginned up by this administration.

Without Bush, it wouldn't have happened.

Bush is saddled with Iraq, and that's just the way it is.

On the economy, Bush is not the only guilty party.

Democrats share blame.

Bush was correct in calling for more drilling off our coasts, in anwr, and in pursuing nuclear power, and building refineries.

Environmental lobby, so powerful within the Democrat party, prevented these measures from happening.

Had we done them, ability of OPEC to pull the strings on U.S. consumer...in effect being puppeteers...yanking the strings on their hapless American consumer puppets...would have been drastically reduced.

Skyrocketing gas prices are forcing Americans every day to confront the ugly reality of loss of purchasing power to ever increasing energy costs, and erosion in value of U.S. dollar.

And they will blame Bush for that.

Bush administration was in power at the time.

How much of that negative spillover will damage John McCain(GOP heir apparent)?

I don't know. Definitely some..for sure.

Crude oil prices were $25 per barrel at the beginning of Iraq war. Now that same barrel of oil is $125, and going up.

Uncertainty in oil futures market is largely attributible to instability in the middle east...which is due to Bush decision to invade Iraq.

And that's just the way it is.

But Obama is paying a crushing price among white Americans for assocation with Wright, and comments about guns and religion. Plus, his voting record in U.S. Senate(most liberal of all, acccording to National Journal).

Will that be sufficient to undo devastating legacy of G.W. Bush, which is a severe handicap for McCain?

We will see in November.




Everyone
Good morning.

Stop by the Abbey, got some new parodies for y'all to enjoy.

Click on my name, or use the following link:

fountainabbey.blogtownhall.com

obama
rickrank, i will agree obama is an excellent orator. let's give the guy a chance. our present leader did not have much experience either, neither did president clinton. i remember when he was running in '91. the question was how can a governor from arkansas possibly become potus. if you can get your points across, usually you can get things accomplished. ronald reagan did it.

It's Downhill From Here
The most worrisome thing is that McCain has made no gains while Clinton and Obama have been tearing each other apart. Even with all that screeching, each of them is running even with McCain, who is running a pathetic campaign.

In about two weeks, the Democrats will decide on the nominee (Obama) and they will kiss and make up. There is nothing else they can do. Where is Clinton going to go? She is going to have to suck it up and hit the trail for Obama.

Who will nominate either Strickland from Ohio or Wesley Clark. Probably Strickland. Between that and every black who can walk, crawl, or teletransport himself to the polls (their turnout is going to be 90%, just wait), you're going to see the Democrats take every state north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River except for New Hampshire and West Virginia. Plus Iowa and Minnesota.

I don't think the Democrats will take Georgia or North Carolina, but you never know. They're going to take Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, the Pacific Coast, and God knows, maybe Montana for God's sake. I've heard that Texas -- TEXAS! -- might be in play.

And look at Congress. The Democrats are probably going to take both the Senate election and the House election in Alaska. They're going to win in New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire and maybe Texas (!!) and North Carolina (!!) They might pick up 40 or 50 House seats.

What the hell happened? I'll tell you what I think. Every 25 years or so, everything just flips. The party that was in power can suddenly do nothing right. The party that's on the outside can suddenly do no wrong. Who in hell is Barack Obama, anyway? But Lord Almighty, the man is the best public speaker since Reagan. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.

Oh well, I better go to bed before I do something drastic.

Savage99
We have several members here from FL
You might make up something with his name & address on it and post it around.

That guy will get less help from the DNC than Joe Lieberman.

Savage 99
You should have p*ssed your $20 in the wind.
All those *blue dog* Dems. in 2006 went right down the liberal shoot as soon as they arrived in DC.
They campaign on lies and then govern as leftists. Congrats.

I can't believe myself
I just signed a petition in a parking lot to put a DEMOCRAT on the ballot for the Stqte house and what's more, i gave him $20. Why? Here is his platform. Drill for oil offshore, end the sugar quota, farm subsidies and the ethanol program, extend vouchers to private schools. I told him he better find some way to get his stands out to the voters because he would get zero help from the local Democratic party. I know he said. I'm a pro-life Catholic. Some Democrat. He is a better conservative than McCain. Some heavy shakeups are taking place. The Woman/black/RINO stooges are realy shaking up the tea pot.

gf
We are both aboard the same ship but I think you might be running for the Lifeboat too soon.

Granted major harm has been done the GOP but most of it can be attributed to a few.
John McCain alone has done us more harm than all the Democrats combined.

Possibly Congress can keep McCain from doing too much harm.

Your thought on these?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/iraq_vets_for_congre ss.html

Problem is
The big problem is not that young people are going Democrat 2 to 1. A more significant problem is that the Republican party pushed out all of the old farts like me who have faithfully voted Republican for over 30 years.

When not if.
I think the the partisanship of the democrats is under-estimated by many people lately.

They will vote for the democrat. I think your making them out to be a little more open minded then they really are.

Perhaps I am wrong. We will see.

for redlac
Redlac writes: "Initially, it wasn't conservatism that got us into Iraq. It was a Wilsonian view of nation change and rebuilding that conservatives had consistently rejected in the 80's and 90's."

This new argument, that Bush isn't really a conservative, isn't very credible, given how enthusiastically conservatives supported his re-election in 2004. Polls showed that Bush had the support of 90% of conservatives.

For 6 years, conservatives NEVER broke with Bush on any issues except Harriet Miers. It was only after Bush's approval rating dropped below 40% that conservatives felt free to start criticizing him openly.

Does it make any difference?
WHEN (Notice I said when, not if), McCain wins he will allow Socialists to run the country and blame a Republican President for all the harm they do.
McCain is so far left that Hillary endorsed him to be Kerry's VP in 2008.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/23/122006.sht ml

Neither Hillary or Obama can carry the Democrat Base and both are hiding a lot of negatives that will be exposed. (By someone.)

America is in for some very hard times with McCain.
But MSM has given us no viable alternative.
MSM just may have cut their own throat this time.

A Little Point . . .
"You don't see Democrats wringing their hands over 22% Approval Rating Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, do you?" - Laura Cap

No . . . they and their left-wing MSM friends keep spinning this by claiming that it's due to their being not far-left-wing ENOUGH (i.e. cutting-and-running from Iraq) that it's so low, and if their far-left agenda were FULLY adopted, it'd be higher. Pleeeeze.

Stoic Patriot
I like your analysis, it makes sense.

But why did you have to bring up the possibility of McCain losing the popular vote and winning the presidency in the Electoral College? I can see it now.

A Dem spy is reading this forum, spots your comment and reports back to Dem headquarters in the San Francisco sewer system. They decide to get ready for the possible fight by starting an information campaign in the MSM to alert America that Electoral College is Un-American and should be shut down.

This is followed by a groundswell in the Dem ranks to kick Electoral College out of the NCAA, disqualify it from the BCS and strip it of its tax exemption, which, of course, would its students inelligible for student loans. Then the MSM will identify Electoral College with the Reps, and the nation will go nuts.

As some wise man once said, "Thanks, I needed that."

Not quite always.
There are some social conservative democrats such as Mississippi's Gene Taylor.

Those who's claims to social conserativism end up being false are held accountable to that.

The same thing can be said of republicans.

One thing about Blue Dog dems
If you look at their voting records since 2006, the "Conservative Blue Dog" dems, became "Yellow Dog" dems and caucussed with the leftists in charge. They went from Conservative during the campaign to just another liberal democrat the second their butts hit their chairs in the house.

The "Conservative" dems that just got elected will follow the same course.

Of course, if the GOP would quit trying to be democrats maybe they'd get the conservatives who voted for the "blue dog" dem.


That sound you hear is Reagan spinning in his grave.

*Spam Alert!*
Check out my blog for my take on what the Reps need to do to win this year.
*End Spam Alert*

McCain's chances of winning.
As many people have pointed out McCain's chances of winning rest maining with the possibility of flaming liberals and angry feminists who want to punish Obama and his supporters for stopping Hillary.

McCain will probably have them to thank and pander to if he manages to have good chances at winning.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh to McCain but it is his own doing for trying to shut down the prolife political action movement and also stop efforts to end gay marriage.

You cannot claim to be social conservative after doing that, not without coming public that you were horribly wrong and will from now on fight for a amendment to the nation's constitution to make marriage between one man and one woman, and pledge a prolife amendment even harder.

If McCain does not do that but insted assumes that he will get the vote of social conservatives just because the democrats are liberal, then I don't think he had much of a chance at all.

Unless ofcourse the flaming liberals and angry feminists actually do vote for him and manage to outweigh all of the conservatives who will not be.

And for all of you who think that these democrats will not support Obama, wake up. They supported Hillary Clinton didn't they? These democrats are extremely partisan and you would do well to keep that in mind.

Lots of Blue States in 08.
Folks, this isn't something new.

Dole only won Georgia by a little more than 1 point.

Dole only won Virginia by 2 points, only won Colorado by 1 point, only won Texas by 5 points.

Dole lost Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisana and Iowa.

Why?

Because Dole was not a social conservative.

Look at history and look at what is happening today. Open up your eyes. Those states are at risk for anyone who is not a strong social conservative.

And now look at what just happened in Mississippi and other places. Social conservative democrats are winning. The people of these states don't need the business wing of the republican party if anything they don't want it and maybe even hate it. They vote for social conservatives. This is what the GOP has known but has rebeled against because it means having to make social conservative issues more important than corrupt business. As you can see this has been a losing plan for them, and apparently social conservatives don't need them. Democrats would be smart to run strict and solid social conservatives in 08.

The media is trying to act like all of those states are a given for the GOP. History says that they are not.

What about McCain's leftist ties?
Tampa Dave: "The Democratic Party is now run by radical leftist Marxist-oriented groups like Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, and various George Soros affiliates."

Guess who else took money from George Soros and other leftist sources, such as Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation? That's right: John Sidney McCain, through his Reform Institute.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177

Malaise? Disillusionment?

"Republican strategist" John Weaver worries that "We have a malaise in our party, we have disillusion in our base."

Gee John, why do you suppose that is? Is it possible that it was not good 'strategy' for moderates, liberals, blue-bloods, and Rockefeller wannabes to anoint McCain as th candidate when THE BASE IS CONSERVATIVE?!?!

Did it ever occur to you blue-blood, weak-kneed, poll-chasing country club RINO weenies that you're going to get "malaise" and/or "disillusionment" when you ignore the politics of the base and anoint the one guy that the base collectively despises? Know wonder you clowns didn't get diddly squat done in six years with control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

It is appropriate and ironic that this column appears right below McCullough's column blasting the CA supremes for ignoring the votes of the people and jamming gay marriage down their throats. How is it really any different for the GOP to ask for donations from its conservative bse and then turn around and foist a RINO turncoat weenie poll-chasing semi-liberal horse's patoot like McCain on us. And then hang their heads and moan about the 'malaise' and blame it on Bush.

I am no longer a Republican.

Someone else?
For those that are not satisfied with any of the three stooges, I urge you to consider Chuck Baldwin, the candidate for the Constitution Party. I don't agree with everything he stands for but he by far better than the other three. http://www.constitutionparty.com

The solution is really simple.
If republicans want to win, they need to run a REPUBLICAN, not a dem-lite who jumps on the gore-bull warming bandwagon that's actually being abandoned by more and more scientists daily. (I could use some global warming about now, it's mid-may and we still need a coat to go outside!)

We need a Republican with "a pair" to stand up to the dems and say "Enough is Enough".

Problem is the RNC appears to be stuck on stupid and still think that running as Dem-Lite is a winning strategy. Yeah, it worked great in 2006 didn't it?

We either get back to our basics, or we plan on 4-8 years under a socialist demonrat.

If a slightly burned out ex-carpenter like me can see it, how come all the "Smart People" in the RNC can't??


*Spam Alert!*
Check out my blog for my take on what the Reps need to do to win this year.
*End Spam Alert*


Steve
Initially, it wasn't conservatism that got us into Iraq. It was a Wilsonian view of nation change and rebuilding that conservatives had consistently rejected in the 80's and 90's. Secondly, it wasn't conservative economic policies that undermined the dollar. It was the abandonment of those philsosophies that did so. Chronically high deficits, overspending, and a determination by both parties to avoid normal market corrections called recessions that caused the feds to drop interest rates to historic lows. Heavy borrowing in combination with those 1% interest rates, and a recent return to 2%, has caused the international community to view the dollar as unstable, inflationary, unable to generate a reasonable return, and to flee it.

The solution, which no candidate is talking about, is to kick the rates back to 5% and to cut spending sufficient to at least 1/2 the deficit from its current level of $500 b to a maximum of $200 B. In addition, you cannot spend more money on health care if you can't pay the bills you have, and the rapidly rising costs of entitlements cannot be sustained. So, you do not have the option of asking the feds to sustain what neither you, nor they, can pay for.

As far as Iraq, no one's simply going to get out, and there's no formula for it either. Any one who thinks knows that we are trapped in a policy in which we can only leave if the government - or some government - is able to maintain enough security to ensure that the country doesn't fail and fall into chaos. We can get angry at Rumsfield for having had his force light policy while the country deteriorated - but that doesn't change where we are today. We can only continue with what we're doing which is to continue to build up Iraq's armed forces while trying to take Sadr and other anti-government influences out of the picture.

SteveL- this is exactly WHY
Romney would be good for the nation.

He has proven over and over that he has the smarts financially, while the Democrat(icks) only prove that they know how to play Robbing Hood.

Red and Blue: once again conservatives
wimp out.

I am still sick of conservatives using the assignations of "Red" and "Blue" that were determined by the Leftist press.

Excuse me but when did it change so that the Left gets to be "Blue?" Isn't it clear to everyone that they are Marxists, and should therefore be "RED?!!!!"

Trying to hide the agenda of the radical Lefties who have taken over the Democrat(ick) party, they switched colors, and nobody seems to object.

I refuse to call the Democrat(ick)s anything but REDS, or at least PINKOS, (Marxist light, like Bill Clinton).

I challange all good conservatives to grow a set for a change and refuse to use the "red" and "blue" asignations as they have been dictated by liberal press.

for BrianR
BrianR asks: "Is that what you want for the rest of the country?"

If conservatives can't show how they can solve the nation's problems, then they don't deserve to run the country.

I'm waiting to hear the conservative platform that:

-- gets us out of Iraq

-- boosts the dollar

-- stabilizes housing prices so that entire neighborhoods don't turn into slums

-- ensures I won't lose my health insurance if I lose or change my job

Do conservatives know how to solve any problem other than "Taxes are too high, let's cut them"???

for BrianR
BrianR,
are you seriously suggesting that Romney or Fred Thompson could win in the current political climate?

With collapsing housing prices, a declining dollar, skyrocketing commodity prices, workers losing their health insurance when they get laid off--these aren't issues that conservatives have any good answers for.

So where are these "Reagan conservatives" you think could really win in November?

Don't you get it? It's CONSERVATISM ITSELF that has run out of ideas. They won the fight on tax cuts, long ago. But they have nothing much to say about the issues that Americans care about right now.

You may not agree with McCain's platform. But it is a comprehensive and forward-looking platform. Versus these mythical "conservatives" who have nothing to say about the real issues people care about.

Go ahead, tell me Fred Thompson's health care proposal. I'm interested.

Mrbmrb--Race Issue
All I was saying was what I saw on TV--When all you hear is how Obama got 90% of the Black Vote-- Is that a RACIST Statement!! My best friend is Black and we drove to College everyday together back in the 70's and SHE was Called Honkey Lover at every stop light by HER RACE. Was that a RACIST Remark??

You Have To Look Here
This is a very eye opening thread, read this and tell me how McCain gets elected. The RNC wanted an amnesty candidate, even if it costs them the election.


http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400

GOP-RIP
McCain (D-Lite) will lose without conservative votes. The Stupid Party tried to shoot itself in the foot with their amnesty candidate and missed, kneecapping itself, looks like it might be a crippling injury. McCainiacs won't notice until November. When it's too late.

Stoic Patriot # 17
Your analysis looks good. If McCain wins, it will be due to some version. Its very similar to how he got nominated. Close wins in winner take all states.

ex-Wyomingite #13
No matter who wins in Nov, the folks who voted for them are going to be seen as people who cackled prematurely. If Obama wins, I will have fun reminding Wobbie. If McCain wins, i will bug King Liberal. Whoever wins, after a year or so in which it is obvious to all they are the most inept president since Peanut Jimmie got all the naive moonbats to vote for him, i will be able to say i told you so to ANYBODY who voted mainstream in 08. I only hope the protest votes for the Libertarian Party et al, and write-ins are a big enough bloc to achieve notice. I'm not hopeful. Neither party seems to have learned much from Perot/Nader.

Georgia
Here is why Georgia may be in Obama's column this way:

1. Increased immigration to Georgia by blacks from Chicago and other cities north;

2. Shellacking of middle-class jobs by the Airlines and Auto Plants;


two comments if i may
anyone wonder if the republicans will be as enthusiastic about their faith based iniatives when obama becomes president? Muslims have many many charities sposored by their religion in US. No organization that is not christain based has ever received funds from the fund base iniatives. Wondr of that might change. What goes around comes around.
is thee anyone but me who remembers that your candidate mad a sppech the other day, a speech tnat he himself says was "major". I call it his "Impossible Dream" or "Wouldn"t it be Loverly" speech. cant remember what he said but then neither can all you conservatives. suppose hes hiding an embarassing moment? It was for me and i was just watching. And almost nobody seems tho think that it was important that Mccain laid out his drerams point by point. Dems are smart. they are runnjignagainst Bush.. Guaranteed win. Anyone want to argue



pat pat
that was a black man you said. really a black man in Indians. Are you sure he was a black man and that he was ranting and raving, a bklack man you say?// Ill be darn, Just to be sure you are sayibng you saw a Black man on tv. what a wonder. Black hmmmmm. no race issues inthis election,

No, no, Redlac

Please don't take that as a criticism; it wasn't.

It just seemed to me you interpreted my remark as support for McCain, and I wanted to clear the air.



Reality for the GOP

An excellent article in general on GOP branding. Here's the link to the entire article:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/14/1022156.a spx

To quote:

"Rep. Tom Davis wrote a 20-page treatise assessing the state of the Republican Party as we head into the summer and presented it to House GOP rank and file this morning. Davis, who is retiring, is rumored to be interested in finishing his term as the head of the GOP House campaign arm.

"And the kicker, 'the Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf.'

"And just in case anyone is laboring under the illusion that the party can remake itself in the image of John McCain, Davis asserts, 'McCain has his own branding and it is not consistent with congressional Republican branding.'"


We can only hope the GOP wises up and convinces McRINO to pull out.

Of course, he's such a massive egotist that the odds of my winning the Lotto are probably ten times better.

BrianR
Sorry - I'll think before I write next time.

Well, "sans pareil"

Yopur post clearly delineates the real problem, doesn't it?

The GOP is dependant on the DEMS to elect their candidate. That speaks volumes, I'd think. What does THAT say about The Stupid Party?


Further, just look to California to see how weel your "fix it from the inside" strategery works in the wqorld of realpolitick:

A GOP flaming liberal Governator, who proposes his own incredibly leftist agenda (like raising taxes, a government healthcare system, and globull warming agenda); who caucuses with the Sacramento Dems; and who treats the few true conservatives like they have rabies.

Sacramento legislators who for the most part conspire with the Dems on redistricting to protect their own seats while assuring a permanent minority status.

Is that what you want for the rest of the country?

Then by all means, your stategery is the way to go.

Oh Chuckles!!! You still haven't answere

the questions....

Are you...

1. Impersonating an officer?

or

2. Violating the UCMJ?



Reasonable People
May disagree but I still believe a large number of the HRC supporters who claim they will either "cross-over OR stay home" are telling us the truth!
Some polls put the number at 47% of her voters willing to NOT VOTE Obama...lets say 20 to 25% of those are DETERMINED to not vote for Barry.

Then too, McCain appeals to many Dems (the old-time FDR-JFK types) so maybe he can syphone off another 5 - 10% (or more) of the 'older' voting bloc that will absolutely show up in November, unlike the historically untrustworthy 'youth vote' the Libs count on time & time again.
That should be enough to send B.Hussein Obama reeling to the worst defeat in the Modern Era.
BUT
The Big GOP problem is of course our own disgruntled Base. And I count myself among the many though I am not willing to allow my country to go down without a fight!
I intend to vote for McShame and take the short term Tactical defeat while working to rebuild the Conservative Movement to gain the Strategic Victory in the future.
Sadly
Every conservative that stays home, casts a "protest vote" or finds some other way to embarrass McCain will only ensure a Lib-Socialist win this year.
X-Treme SCOTUS nominees "rubber-stamped" by a veto-proof, filibuster-breaking Congress. More entitlements & higher taxes. Less REAL Prestige & increased security threats from around the world are what await for making the wrong decision this November.

Think About That!

For God And Country
W/O=

Redlac, I am astonished

that you could read my comment as support for McRINO.

HE is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

I utterly loathe the man, in every way, so let me make sure you understand that message clearly.

The Stupid Party is stupid for making him the presumptive nominee by slanting the primary process in such a way as to favor the two most Leftist, McRINO and the Bald Hillary (Giuliani).

THAT'S what I mean by "stupid".

1994 was the last time the GOP ran a strategy based on real conservatism, which is clearly and obviously my point.

Democrats are socialists....
posing as patriots. Their programs and well outside the meaning of being American. The Democrat Party of today is not the Democrat Party of John Kennedy's time. It is now rife with leftists. Consider that they also engage in the politics of hatred. They hated both the Bush's and they hated Reagan. Here in Maryland the current democrat governor hates the former Republican governor and he makes no secret of it. It is not enough to defeat a Republican in an election. The dems must destroy. If they take over will there be vengeance on everyone. Now that Maryland is a democrat state virtually in total they are working on a law to make it a criminal act to engage in "false or misleading political speech." This very well may become the law of the state. Gosh, I wonder who the democrat administration will use that againts?

GOP All the Way
I would rather be associated with a Republican opposition party than a Democratic majority affiliated with socialism, liberalism, multiculturalism, atheism, intolerance, wealth re-distribution, class warfare, immorality, an entitlement versus merit-based society, global citizenship, Code Pink, the New Black Panther Party, NARAL, the ACLU, LaRaza, PETA, Jeremiah Wright, Paul Begala, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et.al. The days of rational and reasonable Truman Democrats are over. The Democratic Party is now run by radical leftist Marxist-oriented groups like Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, and various George Soros affiliates.

Electability
Obama will likely pick up New Mexico and Colorado, and we should let him. We should fight him for Nevada and Virginia however. I think Obama also stands a decent chance of taking North Carolina, which we should also fight him for. Also, defend Ohio to the hilt. Furthermore, Iowa looks possibly more within the realm of staying Republican than before, so I'd campaign there too.

The Democrats have consistently won Oregon. Had Hillary been the nominee, I would've said to contest Oregon, but she's not and so we shouldn't bother.

States that McCain should focus on capturing from the Democrats include Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.

Using this strategy, McCain could win by ideally as much as 48 electoral votes. The good news is that while Obama may currently win this according to current counts, and has reason to expect his lead to increase nationally once the Democrats consolidate, he may do so in what are already blue-state locks. McCain though has significant "upside" potential to add electoral votes to the red state column.

All in all, McCain could easily get trounced in the popular vote, but nevertheless become President by winning red and swing states by small margins, but losing blue states in lopsided losses.

Here's an idea: run a Republican
If you really want to see how low things have sunk with the Repubs and their voters, read the comments yesterday at the NRCC blog

blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400

Just try to find ONE supportive comment. There are many very entertaining comments so it is well worth reading. I particularly like:

"Hey, I got a Republican Solution, tighten the belt or lose the pants!"

BrianR
But 2006 changed that, as you know. Now, the GOP has a candidate whose manager has stated that by November, the public won't even recognize that he's in the same party. McCain may well win, but that won't help the GOP down the ticket. Independence, after all, isn't a platform nor a set of principals - merely a personal philosophy that doesn't translate into a platform that anyone else can follow. The Bush perspective of "Compassionate Conservatism" didn't work precisely because it eliminated many of the differences between the parties. The GOP will continue to struggle to define itself as McCain's positions on health care, global warming, energy, and immigration, to name only some, will mirror the positions of the Democrats. The GOP will lose seats in the Senate and the House in the fall. Then it will have 4 years in which any attempt to clarify a national message for the GOP will be confused by the positions that McCain takes - and he will be the face of the party. This will be a pyrric victory for the GOP. And while this transpires, the Democrats will continue to redefine that electoral map. You may have contempt for Reid and Pilosi, but they are very pragmatic politicians. They are exploiting the fact that many social conservatives are not economic conservatives. So, they run social conservatives who support an increasing role for the federal government, and win. And, they are picking off one GOP seat after another.

Perhaps the real irony here is that, for the first time I can remember, we have a candidate of a major party who is actually touting his independence of that party. He is distancing himself on issue after issue from the party's base, and from the party's platform.

So, you can certainly stand for McCain, but increasingly, that's bringing up the question of what does standing for McCain have to do with the GOP?

Good
The Re-puke-icans had years of opportunity to become a much stronger party by just doing what they should do, serve and represent the public. Instead, they go to the public coffer and feed like the swine they are. Bringing in cheap foreign labor and allowing illegal invaders to stay in the U.S. favors the DEMON-CRATS everytime, just by sheer numbers. Immigrants, legal and illegal, generally vote Demoncrat, so the idiotic re-puke-icans blast themselves in the foot everytime by their overall avarice in policy making. The fools alienate THEIR own base when they do these things. Don't they get it?

It's very interesting to note, if anyone listens real CLOSE, how policy is good or bad for either PARTY. Hey folks, it's all about PARTY now, your interests and mine are not relevant anymore. Case in point is the attaching (without debate) of the illegal invader amnesty to the war funding bill initiated by Feinstein in the Senate. Whose "interests" would this serve? The answer is BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES (cheap labor and more registered voters).

Demoncrats are no better with their "socialist" agenda. What a disgusting situation we have in this nation now. Corporate interests generally runs American policy. This POTUS and Congress has almost historical LOWS in job approval ratings. What does this indicate? Figure it out for yourself. Unless we get AWAY from the TWO-Party system, I fear things are only going to get worse in the long term. Like Arlo Guthrie used to sing "goodnight America how are ya" My answer to that question is "NOT VERY GOOD"

It's Not All Bush
Stop blaming George Bush for a lousy Republican nominee. You don't see Democrats wringing their hands over 22% Approval Rating Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, do you?

Bad Product
Nobody gets excited about diet ice cream or underpowered cars. They get excited about the real thing.

The GOP, once stood for Reaganism. Today only the young Turks do,(iraqvetsforcongress.com), and the party ignores them. So the party, with nothing to offer relies on the Democrats being worse. Diet ice cream

Meanwhile the Democrats offer their nutso base a genuine flaming Liberal hot rod.

And this is a surprize?


The Stupid Party
Check the over 1190 replies from Tom Coles fundraising appeal to the GOP "base"...spent all night reading these...and NOT ONE is sending the do-re-mi.....

http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400


A Competition
Pundits and writers would like the Obamamama and Hillary thing to keep going hard for a few more months. Else, what is there to write about? No more Demo he said, she said. How much more boring can this get? Tell instead, of the blowout that will come in November when the Demos show up at the polls and the conservatives and near conservatives stay home. Gimme some predictions as to what part of the Obamamama "free" everything will be imposed upon us. That ought to make good talk and you will get lottsa comments.

I Saw It on Fox News
Right after the 2006 Elections, when the Dems took over Congress- I saw a Black man from Indiana ranting and raving--Indiana once a Red State- Now a Blue State, he was gleefully shouting this on Fox News. It made me wonder then- Did George Soros and all those Billionares relocate Dems to Red States??? I just can't imagine an Obama Presidency- I lived through Jimmy Carter-Odd and Even Gas Lines--High Interest Rates--Hostages-Ross Perot got his own hostages out.Why didn't Jimmy Carter go personally to Iran and appease them for the release of the Hostages- No he sent some Helicopters over there in the middle of the night and they crashed. Now Jimmy Carter practically lives in the Middle East as the great Peace Maker--Give me a break!! It took someone like Ronald Regan to get us out of that whole mess.Obama is about as far left as they come- He is probably just like that official I saw from California that doesn't even think we need a Military!!

republicans
pity the poor republicans. read what uis written in these letters day aftyer day, listen to the talk show hosts takling about the election. the overwhelming idea you get from all this is that republicans hate their candidate, hate the democrats, and hate the election. im sure if you toojk a poll just of party operatives you woudl find doom and gloom on all sides. theyare much mor certain that the democrats will win in November han the Democrats are. you dont like your candidate vote for someone else. someone you can do it with a least a half smile on yuour lips instead iof the grimmace i see there now

Professor
It just shows what a rat's nest politics is when tensor analysis seems more comfortable to anyone. You have also increased my confusion by applying Liar, Thief and Flim-Flam Man to our esteemed candidates. I am unable to match your terms to the candidates, even with the possible help of "Man" in one of the appellations.

Mappings
"Mapping" is a useful concept, but it seems rather more comfortable when kept to the realm of Tensor Analysis.

A previous post resonates, "I did not leave the Republican Party. It left me." Lordy! I am faced with a Liar, a Thief and The Flim-Flam Man, one of whom will be America's president!


Six months...
... is an eternity. But I'll be surprised if Obama carries ten states.

Re: Yep, I agree
BrianR, you are just too kind!
Tell us in much more detail, what you really think.

I do not have your skills, but let me lob in a few:

1. Spending like drunken Democrats (sorry, I repeat myself).

2. Losing veto pen for 6 years.

3. Keeping every Clinton appointee when GWB took over the stripped WH.

4. Keeping Rumsfeld long after it was obvious his plan didn't work.

5. Not stomping McLames gang of traitors.

6. Not vetoing McLame-Flamegold.

7. Hiding in the corner instead of telling the commies in congress where to go.

8. Running senile fools as presidential candidates, and hiding the genuine conservatives.

OK. That is just a short list.


Enjoy your defeat:

"The Stupid Party
Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory Since 1994"

Like they say, I didn't leave. My party left me.


Yep, I agree

REALLY Blue.

"The Stupid Party
Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory Since 1994"

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.