Palin says Bush record led to GOP loss

CNN ^ | 11/10/2008 | CNN

[buzzer]

(CNN) – Sarah Palin told local reporters in Alaska that unhappiness with the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy and spending record were responsible for the GOP ticket’s defeat this year.

[Chet 99]

It looks like he had a traditional convention bounce that was beginning to taper off, then plunged with the financial crisis. So your chart does not refute the notion that the financial crisis hurt McCain.

[Darkwolf377]

It looks like he had a traditional convention bounce that was beginning to taper off, then plunged with the financial crisis. So your chart does not refute the notion that the financial crisis hurt McCain.

You'd be right if I ever said the financial crisis didn't hurt McCain. But I never said that.

Why can't you people responding to my post respond to what's IN the post, and not grab this stuff out of thin air?

[Chet 99]

Maybe I misunderstood you. Someone said McCain was leading until the crisis, and you called it fantasy. The fact is he was leading until the financial crisis. But correlation does not equal causation. He would probably have lost that lead in any event, as all convention bounces eventually fade.

[Chet 99]

I agree with your other point about McCain being a rotten candidate, but I’m not sure a better one would have changed the outcome - it only would have made things closer.

[caveat emptor]

Aargh. Another Couric type slice and dice. Less than a minute out of a 9'31" interview. Sarah appears to have just finished a relaxed interview with Greta, and told the ET bunch to buzz off (I think). Here's the relevant part of the interview - why she thought they lost:

My notes - not necessarily word for word quotes: There was a desire for change.

Here CNN comes in: (I heard this on the tape)

“I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration?”

“How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could...”

Big mistake I think. Say anything except something which Obama's minions can do what CNN did. I haven't had time to review the campaign yet. If pressed, yeah, I haven't had time to write even my first autobiography yet. Haven't had time to even think about running again.Will certainly give it some thought later if it becomes relevant. Whatever. Whatever.

Or maybe, perish the thought, Palin's not enough of a barracuda to take care of these punks.

[ebiskit]

“Come on ... most of us here have been slammin’ GW since 04”

We’ve all been victimized (a National Stockholm Syndrome) by the overwhelming, subversively divisive nature of the media, etal. I’ve been guilty of it, but rethought my ways once I looked at HowTheLeftWasWon.com. Pardon link FAIL.

No more, I say. The plan all along was to cleave us from a spirited defense of our CiC. W had to probably almost sell his soul in order to keep the nation at a base level of safety. When have the dhims ever relented on anything? They had him over the barrel of national security and were going to exploit it to the hilt. I have even started to think 9/11 was a dhim/marxist/Prograzi inside job (read Gorelick, our next AG). Can we all say 9/11 to the 100th power? All they are looking for is an excuse big enough, just listen to the O-verbiage.

Sarah4Senate10
Doll&Jindal12

the Deets

[Darkwolf377]

So your chart does not refute the notion that the financial crisis hurt McCain.

THAT is what you claimed I said--I didn't.

He lead by a megre bump post-convention. That was significantly insignificant compared to the leds Obama had before.

I mean, did you look at the chart? It's a compendium of polls. We spent months saying they didn't mean anything. Well, they did.

I do think a better candidate could have won. Bush's negatives and the financial situation were huge handicaps, but the fact that McCain came as close as he did shows his defeat was not inevitable--if he were someone else.

When McCain "suspended his campaign" he shot himself in the foot...and for what purpose? To go to Washington and vote just as Obama did.

A better--conservative--candidate should have gone to Washington and denounced and voted against the bailout--reflecting the wishes of the voters. AND that candidate could have foregone public financing. Obama raised and spent MILLIONS more than McCain.

All of this--the polls; the "suspended" campaign; the campaign money--that a different candidate, espousing conservative principles and using the millions that would have been available to him, could have beaten Obama, who didn't win because he's a leftist but in spite of it.

[Does so]

More broadly it has been President Bush’s failure to carry the mantle of conservatism, which would include vigorously defending his policies and actions.

I think Bush was right on 'most everything, given the inevitable repercussions from the MSM and the overturning of his vetoes.

I also suspect that he received advice from GHWB about protecting his Legacy with silence; most unfortunately, due to circumstances precipitated by Schumer, that now includes a Marxist President.

:(

[Alia]

What a shame.

[fortheDeclaration]

McCain was leading in the polls untill the financial meltdown. The people blamed Bush and took it out on the GOP.

McCain had a chance to distance himself from Bush, by rejecting the bailout and siding with the American People for once!

[Twinkie]

I’m of the opinion that McCain is usually a “gentleman” (too much the RINO country club variety) who will not see that the Democrat/Socialist Party will break the arm that he extends across the aisle. He seems to like attention of the SNL variety too much, thus allowing those clowns to define both him and his running mate. Tina Fey had more face time than Governor Palin did during the campaign.

I do hope that he will face reality if the RNC and the media decide to promote him in the next mock ACORN-controlled election four years from now. - You may say that “he won’t run again, he’s too old”. Well, he was too old this time around, but that didn’t stop him. It was “his turn”.”

Truth was, the mainstream media and Nancy Pelosi had beaten the “hate Bush” drum for the past eight years, and no Republican was going to ever be elected again if they could help it. Nancy broke her promise to “impeach Bush” the day after the 2006 elections. - The MSM is drunk on their perceived “power over the people” and so is Pelosi.

[Impy]

They are tons of reasons why we lost. Any 1 or 2 could have made the difference.

[fortheDeclaration]

I’m of the opinion that McCain is usually a “gentleman” (too much the RINO country club variety) who will not see that the Democrat/Socialist Party will break the arm that he extends across the aisle. He seems to like attention of the SNL variety too much, thus allowing those clowns to define both him and his running mate. Tina Fey had more face time than Governor Palin did during the campaign. I do hope that he will face reality if the RNC and the media decide to promote him in the next mock ACORN-controlled election four years from now. - You may say that “he won’t run again, he’s too old”. Well, he was too old this time around, but that didn’t stop him. It was “his turn”.” Truth was, the mainstream media and Nancy Pelosi had beaten the “hate Bush” drum for the past eight years, and no Republican was going to ever be elected again if they could help it. Nancy broke her promise to “impeach Bush” the day after the 2006 elections. - The MSM is drunk on their perceived “power over the people” and so is Pelosi.

I agree with most of what you say.

McCain is simply a compromiser and doesn't understand the American People.

He is done politically on the national level.

As for the Democrats, it is their own lust for power that may undo them and create in them division and confusion.

Obama is not a strong leader and will not provide much direction.

The GOP needs to regroup, and become conservative again and retake the Congress in 2010.

Too many people are talking about 2012, but the Democrats started their return to power by retaking the Congress, and that is what we must do also.

[GregB]

It was like he did not care...he was on auto pilot...very disappointed in him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Theodore R.]

I was surprised that apparently ten million “conservatives” sat out the presidential race, which also hurt Senate candidates.

[Theodore R.]

I surely agree. That’s make R. Reagan the culprit, for he fostered Bushism thinking he could not win in 1980 without that kind of defeatism and foolishness.

[Theodore R.]

Oprah’s Choice may fail, but the American people only know what the big media tells them, and they aren’t letting the cat out of the bag.

[rudman]

You know, as a long time lurker and a new registered member, I want to get something off my chest that has annoyed me for a long, long time.

The economy has nothing to do with the president. It is congress that passes laws and controls the purse strings. George Bush is a decent honorable man. The only things in his administration that he did wrong was compromise with the liberals in congress - to give them their medicare drug bill in return for keeping america safe.

Even his efforts to put hands around immigration -which I opposed at the time - in hindsight would have delivered the presidency to McCain, all future conservatives and done something about the borders - which hasn' t been done at all since we helped derail that bill. That bill could have been put in placed and improved so that hispanics - who are naturally conservative, mind you - would have become a solid republican voting block for years to come.

Anyone calling him a RINO, or anything like that - isn't a a true conservative, isn't a friend to american, and should take their liberal butts over to the democratic underground where they belong. They demoralize other republicans with such attacks and make it harder overall to get conservatives elected.

Whew. Been wanting to say that for a long time.

[ArrogantBustard]

CNN Lies!!!!

The headline is contradicted by the story.

CNN Lies!!!!

[brushcop]

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!! (not you buzzer) Let’s back up a wee bit here. Look, our family have had a real investment in Iraq with a combat infantryman fighting in two deployments. He was there and witnessed first hand the remarkable elections in Baqubah, a nasty, nasty area, and then was deployed in el-Anbar province, another hot area that had been tamed down considerably on the second one, part of the surge. BOTH deployments were successful, both of them.

Now, some of you armchair generals please tell me where President Bush went “wrong”. Please explain this. I also served many year ago so I know the drill: “After the first shot is fired, all plans are out the window”. I really get sick of people expecting a war to go exactly by plan, doesn’t happen.

We can always look back with coulda, shoulda, woulda crap but that’s not life. I am interested in some good analytical thinking.