More on where the GOP went wrong

star ledger ^ | November 16, 2008 | paul mulshine

[Coleus]

If you're interested in figuring out where the Republicans went wrong and why they no longer have any connection to anything that could properly be called conservatism, I recommend this fine essay by Paul Gottfried in the latest issue of The American Conservative. Here is how Gottfried debunks the notion that John McCain is in any way the philosophical successor to the man who preceded him in representing Arizona in the U.S. Senate:

"McCain may hold the Senate seat that was once Goldwater's, but he is in no way his philosophical successor. The 2008 election was a contest between two varieties of the Left--between an actually left-wing candidate, Barack Obama, and a spurious, one might say 'adjusted,' right-winger, McCain. By contrast, 1964 was the real thing. As a critic of the New Deal and a passionate opponent of any attempt to expand it, Goldwater questioned the rationale for an American welfare state."

McCain and Sarah Palin, of course, were equal to the Democrats in stating their love for the welfare state, and even went them one better in their desire to spread it to the Mideast. Gottfried nicely debunks the fallacy of so-called "neo" conservatism, which is simply a form of liberalism. Many voters in his home state of Pennsylvania recognized it as such:

"Much of the Right in my state of Pennsylvania rejected McCain. They found his saber-rattling and neocon boilerplate about a 'league of democracies' to be unacceptable."

[ajay_kumar]

Actually it is not complicated why GOP/McCain/Palin lost.
It is because 1st time since JFK the dimocrats ran on tax cuts
for 95% of people. McCain/Palin failed to counter that bribe offered by Zero to the gullible middle class who will never see the tax cuts in Zero’s administration.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Two words: Compassionate Conservatism.

[television is just wrong]

some woman at work told me that bush owns chevron and so on. says he was responsible for all of us having to pay for all the high prices of gas and that is why she voted for obama?

wow is this true.,

[omega4179]

After Kerry the DBM realized they could lead these sheeple any way they wanted by just not reporting negatives on the Dem and report all the negatives endlessly on the Repub.
It worked.

[pallis]

McCain claimed to be the philosophical successor to Morris Udall.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Easy call, the big boys love money and power more than they love the nation.

[what's up]

just not reporting negatives on the Dem and report all the negatives endlessly on the Repub.

Yup. My vote for where things went wrong rests squarely on the MSM propoganda machine.

Lies, lies lies all the time. They depressed the Repub vote.

[Canedawg]

Yup. My vote for where things went wrong rests squarely on the MSM propoganda machine.

---

Mine too.

[Intolerant in NJ]

some woman at work told me that bush owns chevron and so on. says he was responsible for all of us having to pay for all the high prices of gas and that is why she voted for obama?...she voted for the man who leads the party - the Democrats - who are responsible for high gas prices because for twenty years they refused to allow the United States to produce our own ample and otherwise available supply of oil - tell her to enjoy the relatively low gasoline prices we have now while she can, because as soon as he enters office Obama will reimpose the presidential ban on drilling in this country, and the speculators, knowing that we will once again be dependent on Obama's middle-east friends for our supplies, will begin driving the prices for oil back toward the skies - and that lots of us will be thinking about her when we're paying all those reinflated prices by next year this time.......

[backhoe]

Actually it is not complicated why GOP/McCain/Palin lost. It is because 1st time since JFK the dimocrats ran on tax cuts for 95% of people. McCain/Palin failed to counter that bribe offered by Zero to the gullible middle class who will never see the tax cuts in Zero’s administration.

That's as good an explanation as any. That, and having 95% of the "news" and entertainment industry wanting to elect Duh!1©...

[an amused spectator]

After Kerry the DBM realized they could lead these sheeple any way they wanted by just not reporting negatives on the Dem and report all the negatives endlessly on the Repub.

September and October were one long negative ad against the Republicans.

[brushcop]

September and October were one long negative ad against the Republicans.

Their entire existence is one long negative ad against Repubs, always has been. A shootin' revolution is fine with me...and do it before the reeducation camps are opened please.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Thank you. You speak the truth. This had nothing to do with Republicans. The MSM has spoon fed a nation full of idiot voters who know nothing except what the MSM told them.

We either figure out how to out PR the RATS and the MSM or we're forever going to be left in their dust.

I see where issues had nothing to do with this.

[an amused spectator]

Their entire existence is one long negative ad against Repubs, always has been.

They managed to hide it for a long time, but the Palin suicide attacks forced them out into the open. Scumbags.

[reasonisfaith]

I’ve seen similar examples.

[Still Thinking]

Liberals say Bush and Cheney are conducting war in the middle east to "get the oil" so they and their buddies can personally profit from it. But they also blame him for the shortage of supply that increases prices. While I suppose you could think up a plausible scenario for either way, I can't figure out where Bush wants more oil or less oil. Whichever happens seems to be a sinister plot of his to make money, but I can't see how the exact opposite actions could both lead to the same result for him.

[Still Thinking]

Well, don’t forget RINO and Dem voters in the primary that left the GOP with an uninspiring liberal candidate many swore they wouldn’t vote for.