Not A "Change" Election, A Rejection Election...No Record Turnout
You remain as delusional as you were in voting for "THE ONE." We now know that the selection by the MSM press of John McCain and the efforts on his behalf by "inside the beltway elite" because he was "the only Republican who can win this election," caused Conservatives to stay away from the polls in large numbers.
Obama's victory came, not from a ground-swell of "average Joes" rebelling against Conservative values and embracing expanded government and the agenda of "change" (whatever that means), but from an overwhelming rejection of John McCain as the RINO he is.
If, as has now been demonstrated, black turnout for Obama broke all previous records due to his presence on the ballot and the history-making breakthrough of electing a black man as President of the United States and if voter turnout did not significantly increase, as has now been proven, then that means that there were a heck of a lot of voters who rejected all of the candidates and stayed home.
I had substantial anecdotal evidence from Conservative blog sites that supported that assumption, but now the numbers prove it.
Report: '08 turnout same as or only slightly higher than '04Though Sarah Palin was a strong enough attractive force to sway some Conservative voters to support McCain, her presence on the Republican ticket was not enough to overcome the strong visceral dislike for him that Conservatives have. They rejected him even though he was running against the most Liberal Democrat since Johnson (though at least Johnson understood the importance of winning wars rather than losing them...even he wasn't that stupid).
Posted: 01:55 PM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new report from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago — or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.
The report released Thursday estimates that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country.
“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.
“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” Curtis Gans, the center’s director, said in the report. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”
Clearly, if the Republican Party wishes to regain power in Washington, they must move back toward the values that put them in power to begin with:
- Smaller government
- Low taxes
- Less spending
- Strong foreign policy
- Secure borders
- Strong military
- Strong pro-life justices and
- A rational energy policy - enough with this Global Climate Change crap
To this list, I might add a second effort to get term limits passed into law, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. To me, if you can't achieve what you have set out to do in 12 years, it's time to go home and let someone else try. These lifetime seats are what cause men like Ted Stevens (R-AK) to become so detached from the rest of us that they feel entitled to feather their nests at tax-payer expense.
When Republicans run on strong Conservative principles, they win. When they attempt to "cross the aisle" and turn into Democrat-light...well we just saw the result.
Republicans got a well deserved thumping because they turned their backs on their core values and the base.
The facts are clear: return to the Constitutional principles that built this great nation; you win. Listen to the RINO pundits like Peggy Noonan (isn't she just so very precious), David Brooks (the man has been around the Liberals at the New York Lies that he has become one), George Will (another precious soul...George why don't you stick to baseball?), and the rest of the elite, ivy-league, pseudo right; you get thumped...very soundly.
There's going to be a real rough and tumble battle for the leadership of the Republican Party. If they turn Right, they will be rewarded...heck I might even rejoin the party.
It's going to be fun watching all of those Obama-bots become disillusioned as they see their messiah reveal his feet of clay. He will be forced to govern from the Middle or he will be another one term failed Democrat President (that's Jimmy Carter for all you pea-brained Obama-bots...the worst President in the past century).
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 10:33 PM
19 Comments:
As I am sure you are well aware, Bush now carries the title of worst president in the past century. His policies were aggressively disastrous, where Carter was simply inept.
You are absurdly wrong. History will prove President Bush to have been a successful President in much of what he did.
Carter was a total disaster. His foreign policy was weak and dangerous, his economic policies were disasterous and he remains a fool to this day.
President Bush has won the war on terror to date, he has succeeded far in excess of what anyone could have reasonably expected in Iraq and he has done so in spite of an aggressive and treasonous opposition within the Democrat Party and their weak-kneed RINO sisters.
Democrats sought at every turn to undermine and destroy President Bush's efforts in Iraq, yet he prevailed and they failed. Iraq is closer than ever to a stable lasting democratic government and they will achieve it if Barack Obama doesn't blow it like the Democrats did in Vietnam.
He has appointed sterling judges to the Circuit Courts and two of the finest, most qualified Justices to the Supreme Court. He has cut taxes and brought us out of the Clinton recession. He sought to place greater constraints on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was oppposed and blocked by Democrats like Barney Frank, Barack Obama (the number two recipient of Fannie Mae campaign contributions) and Chris Dodd (the number one recipient of Fannie Mae campaign contributions).
He has been far from perfect, but he is just as far from the devil people like you attempt to portray him as.
No one in America can honestly state that they expected the United States to go seven years without a second terrorist attack following 9-11.
You demented Bush haters have a unique talent for hyperbole. The difference between you and we Conservatives is that you actively wished for President Bush to fail as a President. You went out of your way to cause his failure. You put your own desire for power over the good of our nation.
I sincerely hope that Barack Obama is wildly successful as a President. I hope he maintains our national security and finds a means of speeding our economic recovery. I merely doubt that his policiy proposals will do so.
Unlike you pitiable sufferers of Bush Deranagement Syndrome, I don't actively hate Barack Obama...or any other Democrat. I may despise their political machinations and I certainly have contempt for their political beliefs, knowing as I do that Socialism is a demonstrably failed economic paradigm and that a foreign policy based on negotiation and appeasement is a recipe for failure and danger, but I don't hate any of you fools.
You see I don't believe in "shared sacrifice," I believe in individual responsibility and individual success, unfettered by an over protective, over regulative government. I believe in the greatness of America. I don't feel any need to apologize for my country, because I know that we are the most successful, strongest, most generous, most self-sacrificing nation in the history of the world.
History has proven me correct and those on the Left wrong.
Bush is a good and honorable man who has endured more hatred and scurrilous attacks from dishonorable people than any President in history (including Bubba Blue Dress) and you know what, he will leave office with his head held high and he will sleep well at night, knowing that he has done what he believed to be right rather than what was politically expedient.
Democrats have yet to learn to place allegiance to their country above that to their party and their personal political ambitions.
If you truly believe what you have written then you are an elitist fool; poorly grounded in history and ruled by emotions.
This election was a "change" election. The change came in the form of the rejection and repudiation of "compassionate conservatism" (whatever that means). I guess you still believe that GW Bush is a "reformer with results". I proudly proclaim that I am a liberal and a progressive, but I did NOT want George Bush to fail. He and his cronies failed the country. They have mismanaged two wars, they destroyed New Orleans, they are responsible for the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the face of all that, how can you say that people did not vote for change? How can you say that history will see Bush as a successful president? If you believe that, then you must believe that history will "absolve" Fidel Castro. I love how you think that anytime anyone criticizes Bush, they are automatically haters, but when anyone describes Obama as a "terrorist", "socialist", etc, then those are appropriate criticisms. It just seems to me that modern conservatism is in its death throes and its adherents are fighting a losing ideological battle. You overreached with the Gringrich revolution, and you were delegitimized with Bush.
I hope you're right and the Republicans do oust the "RINO"s and more fully embrace extremist social and economic policies.
Then they can become even less relevant and electable.
The American people know a boondogle when they live through it. The Iraq war has not succeeded far beyond what was expected. You blythely forget how we were to have been welcomed as liberators, showered with flowers, etc. Not much dancing in the streets of Baghdad now, is there? Kind of knocks the props out from the wonderfulness of it all. And Mr. McCain, with his willingness to hang on another 100 years bought the scam.
As for the Democrats and Viet Nam you seem to forget exactly when the Paris Peace Accords (try 1973) were signed and who was running the US government then (try Richard M. Nixon, first elected 1968, re-elected 1972).
As for your farcical "Clinton recession" I can only laugh. Mr. Bush should do so well.... He's squandered the SURPLUS Mr. Clinotn left.
No, Mr. Bush has run the country into the ground and the Republicans are paying the price for his so doing, and for unthinkingly supporting him in that for the past 8 years.
But if you think adhering to these toxic polcies is what the Republicans need, yes, please do- and make the Republicans completely unelectable.
McCain is a RINO? If anyone other than McCain had been the Presidential nominee, someone who thought more like Bush, it would have been an even bigger blow out.
Get real. America voted for a new direction. The GOP has dumped all the moderates and is left with a dwindling base. Your candidates do not appeal to swing voters. Enjoy being a minority - you deserve it.
Rey_Tejano,
Anyone telling me they "proudly proclaim that I am a liberal and a progressive" has already proven they have a limited understanding of economics, and human nature.
I am glad, however that you did not want President Bush to fail, in that at least, you have differentiated yourself from a majority of your fellow Liberals.
Unfortunately, you again reveal yourself as a liar (Liberal) when you state that "they destroyed New Orleans." Either you are claiming that President Bush is capable of controlling the weather and sent Katrina to New Orleans (in which case you are clearly delusional), or you are ignorant (as is typical of Liberals) and therefore, unaware that the Democrats have controlled New Orleanse for the past century. They were given plenty of money to strengthen the levee system, but as is so typical of Liberals, they diverted the money to Earthly pleasures...building casinos.
But I see no reason to revisit the Democrat debacle known as Katrina with you, if you wish I will recite chapter and verse the tremendous number of failures of Louisiana Democrats through the years that led to the Katrina disaster...I am from there so I know them well...care to dance?
---------------------
Ignorance abounds in you:
"They are responsible for the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression."
Your statement is only correct if by "they" you mean Democrats. Heck even the Liberals at SNL know that Democrats blocked every effort by Republicans and the President to increase oversight on the two Freddie's.
Seems Obama and Dodd were too happy with the status quo getting the huge campaign contributions as they were. Fannie and Freddie were pretty much Democrat organizations and a huge source of contributions to Democrat candidates.
---------------
Your comparison of President Bush and Castro is specious and absurd, just as is your assertion that Conservatism is in its death throes. Apparently you didn't read my article or logic isn't your forte (as you are a self-proclaimed Liberal, probably both are true).
-----------------
Your ignorance of political matters is such that any further discussion is probably pointless.
You parrot the talking points of your party, but you lack even a marginal knowledge of the facts.
Go away you uninformed gnat.
expatriate_texan,
You are wrong, the initial reaction to our presence included a great deal of dancing in the streets and shouts of praise for our troops...or don't you remember our troops joining in to assist the citizens of Baghdad in pulling down the statues of Saddam Hussein?
It is true that, following the initial successes, the aftermath was grossly mishandled and the resistance was sadly underestimated and I blame the President for this.
However the errors have been corrected and Iraq is now in far better shape than you Liberals wanted or expected, so much so that it ceased to be a topic of discussion by your MSM buddies and became irrelevant in the Presidential election.
This success was accomplished over the stringent objections of and in spite of the obstructionist efforts of people like you and your Democrat Party. Even when confronted by incontravertible evidence, it required four attempts before Obama could bring himself to admit that the surge had been successful and even then he equivocated. He wasn't even man enough to admit that his initial call for immediate withdrawal was wrong and would have left Iraq in the hands of al Qaeda.
Of course there's always hope, perhaps President Obama can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and turn Iraq over to the terrorists. You may yet still get your wish.
Unfortunately for you, President Elect Obama is showing sign of changing...seems the information he has gotten as a result of his intelligence briefings has altered his opinion. It's amazing what happens when foolishness is replaced by information.
-------------
Your knowledge and understanding of the Democrat Vietnam betrayal is obviously just as limited. You must be reading the Time-Life children's edition of history.
There was nothing flawed or inherently wrong with the Paris Peace Accords, unless you are speaking of Nixon's mistake in trusting the word of Democrats in Congress.
A major provision of the Paris Peace Accords (and the only reason they were agreed to) required that America continue funding the South Vietnamese Army and continue to supply them with arms. There was also a pledge to return to Vietnam should the North break the accords.
Democrats pledged to do these things then as soon as they were needed, broke that pledge, leaving the South Vietnamese Army without the means of stopping the NVA. The South Vietnamese regulars were well trained and fully capable of defeating the North...if they had been given the assistance they were promised.
You might try talking to a Veteran from Vietnam...I mean one from the South Vietnamese Army. I have had extensive discussions with two such gentlemen on two separate occasions and both said much the same thing. To quote one man, "We had the willingness, we had the weapons, but we had no bullets. Heartbreaking if you care about people...which I doubt you do as a Liberal.
You know, it sort of reminds me of the way Democrats now are demanding that we leave the Iraqis to their fates. Seems Democrats don't really care about other people, they just talk about it.
---------
The only farcical statement here is yours. The economy began its decline in the summer of 2000 and was in full blown retreat by January when President Bush took the reins. God himself could not have kept us out of a recession.
America was then hit with 9-11. I know you Liberals don't like to be reminded of that minor event, but it was an immediate $1 Trillion hit on our economy.
Oh, and in case you don't remember, the only reason President Clinton managed to have a surplus was because of the Republican instigated welfare reform (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) and the tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill of 1997 (again a Republican initiative). Clinton was didn't really care about all of that, he just wanted to enjoy the trappings and power of office, but he was a pragmatist and saw the advantage of signing those Republican initiatives.
-----------------
Where President Bush is culpable is in being complicit in the spending orgy, primarily a Republican orgy, by refusing to use his veto pen. There he has been clearly at fault.
Sorry you are so uninformed, it must suck to be a Liberal idiot.
Yes anonymous, Senator McCain is a RINO and he is very much like President Bush, a Left of Center Republican...at least where economic and border issues are concerned.
He has overseen the largest spending increase since President Johnson's administration.
Otherwise, you are delusional if you believe your own rhetoric. The numbers do not support your assertion, they support mine.
This was not a "record turnout" it was a typical turnout, in spite of the pie-in-the-sky predictions by your buddies in the MSM. Therefore your claim of "a new direction" is self-inflating Liberal balderdash...pure puffery.
I can't wait until you idiots start turning on your latest annointed one because he turns out to be a pragmatist.
For all of you Liberal Idiots.
I am always amused at all of the gutless drive by commenters who use aliases or simply "anonymous" because they lack the courage to take responsibility for their words.
Spineless "weenies" is probably the closest I can come to describing people like you.
Come and dance some more. Every time you comment, you demonstrate your ignorance.
Will, you are so predictable. Resorting to name calling anytime somebody disagrees with you. Why can't right wingers like you ever have a rational discussion. It's sad that civility and common courtesy aren't in your vocabulary. Maybe it's too much to ask for a rational debate.
The federal response to Katrina was due to the incompetence of Brownie and Bush...you remember what a good job they did, don't you? FEMA couldn't get out of its own way and they allowed New Orleans to drown when the levees gave way. Nice try blaming the Democrats though. Brownie clearly forged great leadership skills as the head of the Arabian Horse Association.
It's amazing watching you revise history to give the Republicans more credit than they deserve. Herbert Hoover was President when the Great Depression began, and it was up to FDR to lead the nation through WWII and to turn the economy around. Obviously you aren't very bright because I did not compare Bush to Castro. I compared what you said about Bush being vindicated by history to what Castro said about history absolving him. Please try to keep up!!!
And as I clearly remember, Bush touted the "Ownership Society" during one of his State of the Union Addresses. You can't say that the Republican Administration had nothing to do with the housing crisis. It's funny how you don't mention that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was still receiving money from Freddie Mac while he was busy running McCain's campaign. I hope that you check your facts next time you respond so you don't humiliate yourself.
Adios.
rey_tejano,
Having a rational discussion requires that the person with whom you are having that discussion be rational, which you obviously are not.
You claim:
"FEMA couldn't get out of its own way and they allowed New Orleans to drown when the levees gave way."
Interesting, now it's FEMA that "allowed New Orleans to drown." I thought New Orleans drowned because the levees failed, not because FEMA did or did not move fast enough. Perhaps the Army Corps of Engineers could have done something prior to Katrina, but unfortunately the Democrats controlling the purse strings wanted to build those casinos.
FEMA is not and was NEVER intended to be a first responder. It was an incompetently run state government (run by Democrat Kathleen Blanco) and an equally incompetent city government (run by Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin and his Democrat city council) who allowed New Orleans citizens to suffer as they did.
Ray Nagin flew to Dallas and watched his city flood, leaving his citizens stranded. He ignored his own city's evacuation plan. He wasn't even clever enough to use the hundreds of city school buses to evacuate the people, instead he told them to go to the Super Dome.
Interesting that this Democrat Mayor lacked the intelligence and initiative that an 18 year-old boy had (Jabor Gibson), who commandeered an abandoned school bus and drove it, full of people, to Houston.
The real failure of New Orleans was the "Socialist Paradise" Democrats built within the city which created a citizenry entirely dependent upon government aid and totally incapable of helping themselves.
It was the inescapable result of any socialist political entity. That you Liberals seem incapable of comprehending this is what leads Conservatives to hold you in such contempt.
By the way, I didn't hear any of you Liberals complain about Michael Brown when he was in charge of FEMA during Florida's bout with four hurricanes during 2004...of course they had Jeb Bush, a Republican for governor.
In fact, the only state to suffer a complete breakdown of their infrastructure and command hierarchy during Katrina was the Democrat led Louisiana.
Mississippi suffered more damage than Louisiana, but of course they too had a Republican governor, Haley Barbour.
Texas also handled both Katrina and Rita better than Louisiana, but again we had a Republican governor.
Seems Democrats are the only ones who can't handle their governmental responsibilities. Perhaps it is because their Liberal mentality tells them to rely on the Federal Government rather than take initiative themselves.
I also can't help but notice that you have failed to mention Hurricane Floyd, the East Coast disaster that rivaled the New Orleans disaster, which occurred under President Clinton and his FEMA Director James Lee Witt. One difference between the two; President Bush fired Michael Brown for his failures, Clinton kept Witt following his debacle.
As I said, you lack the knowledge and understanding to debate this. Democrats are useless in times of disaster and are generally incompetent in running governments.
You have to know the entire history of the levee system and the concept of the law of unintended consequences to understand what actually caused the Katrina-New Orleans disaster.
As for FDR, the programs he instituted were largely of Hoover's design...which doesn't absolve Hoover because those Socialist programs of which you seem so enamored probably delayed our economic recovery rather than help it. The economy recovered because of the war, not because of anything FDR did.
Never said that Republicans didn't receive campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, only that the Democrats took more and actively blocked all efforts to regulate the two institutions, definitely a quid pro quo by Democrats. But of course it runs far deeper than that, it involves funneling over $800 Thousand through ACORN which then used that money to force banks to grant more high risk loans to unqualified borrowers.
You really are ill-informed if you equate touting an "ownership society" with promoting bad loans to high risk people. Participating in an "ownership society" implies that the people should be able to afford what they own...another novel concept to a Liberal like you, I know, but it is fundamental to a free market.
By the way, last I heard, Rick Davis was a private citizen, not a member of our government...oops, another specious argument...better try again.
You only receive respect on these pages when you earn it. Beginning with the statement that you are a proud self-proclaimed Liberal and Progressive (alert the Department of Redundancy Department), you started off deep in a hole.
Progressives and Liberals...the same people...are naive, Utopian fools who have no understanding of human nature, the law of unintended consequences, and reality. They claim compassion but promote oppression and confication of private property.
You have an annoying tendency toward platitudes and feel good policies which accomplish very little but sound "really nice."
I have no respect for those who voted for Obama; they are foolish and naive and therefore they are
dangerous.
You want a sympathetic view, take it to a fantasy land like dailyKos.com or democraticunderground.com where you will find like minded Utopian fools.
Typical. You closet liberals don't can't come up with decent arguments so you immediately resort to name-calling. You even make up words, like deranagement. Good one. Even though Bush is a liberal, you mindlessly support him. Get a clue.
It's not that McCain lost; the fact is that Obama won. That this is partially due to the sense of commitment he aroused in minorities and in the young does not matter, unless you have a sane argument explaining why their vote doesn't count.
And you do not.
JG: How difficult is it to figure out the word "derangement" with a simple typo? You need to do some vocabulary building. If this is your example of a "decent argument," I can only ROFLMAO.
I had thought that RINO meant "Republican in name only," but for this discussion it seems to mean "anyone who's not a glassy-eyed evangelical gun nut." Have I got that right?
Let's see souldog,
1. McCain was originally against President Bush's taxcuts because they were "tax-cuts for the wealthy"-definitely a Democrat talking point, not a Republican position.
2. McCain wants to do something about "Global Climate Change" (nee "Global Warming"). Again this is a Democrat Party position, not a Republican position, as it is actually an issue based on poor science and is intended to place greater governmental controls on the economy.
3. "McCain-Feingold"-need I say more?
4. "McCain-Kennedy"-ditto.
5. McCain-Lieberman-ditto again.
6. McCain worked against his own party and President Bush when he joined with Senator Byrd in instigating the "Gang of 14" to defeat the "nuclear option" effort to break the Democrat Senators' misuse of the filibuster against judicial appointments.
7. McCain voted for the $700 billion bailout and again for its $850 billion successor, hardly a traditional Republican position; more of a socialist position similar to Democrat Party philosophy.
8. Supported (up until recently) Embryonic Stem-cell research.
They say "birds of a feather, flock together" and that definitely places McCain in the RINO column. He is more closely associated with Olympia Snowe, RINO-ME, Susan Collins, RINO-ME, Chuck Hagel, RINO-NE, John Warner, RINO-VA, Arlen Specter, RINO-PA, Lincoln Chafee, RINO-RI, and of course the ever present Lindsey Graham, RINO-SC. Basically the Who's Who of RINO's in the Senate.
Yep, I'd have to say he definitely earned the moniker RINO.
In fact, the only area he has been strongly in the Republican camp is on Iraq and Joe Lieberman, D-CT (yeah, I know he ran as an independent, but he still caucuses with the Democrats).Oh and you might have noticed, not a single mention of evangelism or the Second Amendment.
I never claimed that the youth vote, they who are more easily swayed by idealistic, impractical, Utopian appeals to their emotions, doesn't count.
I merely pointed out that the vote count and voter turn-out percentage was not significantly greater than in 2004 or even 2000 and thus, since the claim is made that there was a large influx of new voters among the youth and the African-American population, those numbers prove that a large number of Conservative Republican voters stayed home.
A stronger candidate, with a stronger belief in Conservative ideals would have better consolidated the Republican base and could have been more effective in laying out the case for Conservative principles.
If you aren't truly committed to an ideology, it is difficult to make a convincing argument as to why voters should vote for you rather than your opponent; especially when your views and his are so similar. McCain and Obama differed only by degrees on most issues. The only real strong argument for McCain over Obama was his understanding of foreign policy and national defense.
Unfortunately, Americans tend to be very short-sighted and vote their pocketbooks more than the larger and more critical issues; the issues in which the federal government can more appropriately and constitutionally exercise its power.
Thanks for laying out your RINO judgement of McCain in more specific terms.
Whilr there was no record turnout of the electorate at large, the record turnout among the youth and minorities, contributing to a 2.6% rise in tyrnout for the Democrats, constutytes all the "record turnout" that any Democrat might wish for. Obama "energized the base" of his own party without antagonizing Republicans enough to motivate them to vote against him.
That's why I say Obama won more than McCain lost; GOP turnout was the same as for Bush.
What can I say? Lack of any ability to make rational decisions has ever been the province of about 60% of our youth.
They are always subject to being saduced by the sort of soaring, empty rhetoric so common in President Elect Obama's campaign. The lack the maturity to discern the Utopian from the real.
When schools are more interested in social and political indoctrination than they are in teaching young people how to think, it then falls on the parents to teach them rational political thinking.
Fortunately they will begin to learn as they grow older and will begin to make more intelligent choices...at least some will...the rest will be Democrats.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home