The problem was not the particular candidate, it was having a social liberal.
Posted on 11/16/2008 12:50:09 PM PST by Kukai
The problem was not the particular candidate, it was having a social liberal.
McCain was the media’s favorite candidate when he wasn’t GWB. When he tried to run as a Maverick, he found that the MSM love the Real Thing (their Kool-Aid Candidiate) more than him. He was useless to them; they had a better ham with B Hussein Obama.
You have ‘neo-con’ in your article. Your gonna get attacked.
Yeppers...
We’uns in the South are carrying the conservative/Republican flag...
Y’all Northerners done let us’uns down...
:(
Bingo. Always will be.
The only thing this election showed us is that a known RINO will lose to anyone, even a Communist.
Any and all conclusions must be drawn starting with that FACT!
Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina are all a disgrace.
There’s a lot wrong with this article but I’ll only speak of my home state.
Here in Michigan the state usually goes republican in all but 9 or 10 of our 83 counties. In this election it swung wildly blue over most of the state. I attribute that just as much to McCain as I do Obama and all his help from ACORN.
In the future the GOP would be well advised to take a look at Reagan’s Michigan playbook. We are after all the traditional home of the Reagan Democrats. Writing us off in election after election only guarantees the state to the democrats. We are after all a state that has opposed same sex marriage, affirmative action, and voted in support of concealed carry.
I disagree somewhat. The people of those states are not the problem. The real disgrace is shared between a Liberal Party structure leading to a Liberal candidate leading to typical Liberal ability to manipulate and "fairly count" the vote.
Ignore the thinking that generates this crap. The real potential for inclusive gain for the GOP may be, ironically, due to Obama's win. If it enables the black community to begin to emerge from their historic wallowing in dependency and victimhood, more will feel free to vote their actual values and interests. That means conservative republican, when they begin to take an honest look at it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Tennessee Nana,
Ye be right. It be good livin’ in a land o’ common sense that wuz votin’ fer Guvner Palin.
Them Northerners looks down on us regular folks whut ain’t refined enough fer their delicate sensibilities. :O(
Tennessee Twinkie ;O)
South Carolina’s GOP chairman, Katon Dawson, sees things differently. He blames moderation for the party’s setbacks and recommends, for starters, a vigorous push against illegal immigration (one of the many issues on which McCain lost contact with reality).
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford agrees, saying that the party’s “rebranding” efforts failed to expand its base and turned off conservatives.
“That is what ‘compassionate conservatism’ was about,” Sanford told The Times. “It was a disaster.”
IMHO Sanford has it right! You cannot rebrand because then you don’t stand for anything. What you can do is say this is what we stand for and reach out to groups with conviction of conservative principles. Doesn’t mean we have to shut off all dialogue to moderates and Dem conservatives because both of those groups helped McCain win every county in OK. What it does mean is that we don’t sell out on our core values.
McCain’s dissed conservatives for years and when he needed them, a lot didn’t vote for McCain. Here in Oklahoma, Obama scared us more and we loved Sarah Palin. We even had black Republicans I know support McCain here in OK and wouldn’t have voted for Obama under any circumstance.
Money quote.
“THE ONLY THING THIS ELECTION SHOWED US is that a KNOWN RINO will lose to ANYONE, even a COMMUNIST.”
Bears repeating.
When I’m right, Im right
And I’m always right...
:)
The "deep south" states down in Dixie, on the other hand, elected many socialist RATs. Several of them switched from GOP to Dem. Chicagoan Obama became the first Dem since LBJ (who was a lifelong Texan) to win Virginia and North Carolina, and he also carried Florida. None of those are "border states", they are all south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Those states also elected large amounts of RAT Senators and Congressmen, including both of Arkansas' Senators are Dems (Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor), both of Virginia's Senators are Dems (Webb & Mark Warner), both of Maryland's Senators are Dems, a Dem and a RINO in FL, a Dem Senator (Laudrieu) in Louisiana was re-elected, and a Dem Senator in North Carolina was elected (Kay Hagan). Again, compare this to the western dustbowl states -- which all have two Republican Senators, except for a DINO (Ben Nelson) in Nebraska and some Dems in the Dakotas. And there's Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, which Congressional delegations are about as Republican as you can get.
And lastly, the deep south states in Dixie have a number of RAT governors and RAT legislatures, including allegedly "conservative" states like Alabama. Kansas and OK elected Dem governors recently, but their track record shows both of those cases were flukes and not a regular occurrence.
Actual it is their historical roots, the black community voted 95% conservative until kenndy bribed the black preachers to support him.
Well, I may live in the north...but my heart belongs in the south....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.