Well, you will get no argument from me about the state of the republican party today. That’s why we lost. It would have been a even greater loss, if Palin had not been on the ticket. Many of us would not have even bothered to vote.
Buchanan is not my cup of tea. Sorry. Neither is Huckabee. They both have played the role of spoiler in our national elections and I don’t cotton to that either.
Enjoyed our back and forth though. Have a nice evening.
Well, you will get no argument from me about the state of the republican party today. That’s why we lost. It would have been a even greater loss, if Palin had not been on the ticket. Many of us would not have even bothered to vote.
I liked Palin too, but I am not too sure she helped a lot in the end. I just don't know if there were ever really a way to overcome McCain or the damage done by the Party over the last few years. Not this round anyway. I am hoping that after a few years of Obama and Pelosi maybe people will remember what conservatism offers, and both the GOP and the people will start to return to it.
Buchanan is not my cup of tea. Sorry. Neither is Huckabee. They both have played the role of spoiler in our national elections and I don’t cotton to that either.
Hmmm. I don't know about that. I think elections are made to be spoiled in a sense. The people we call spoilers are often just what could be best hoped for. In a way Palin herself was a spoiler, in that she was a more conservative voice that the people could speak through to turn McCain to a wiser course. Sadly McCain is slow to learn, and probably too unconservative to listen, but she still offered many Republicans a real representative of their views, which McCain was not. Palin, also, thanks to the press and public opinion lacked the weight in the public discourse to really move the discussion to the right where it should have been all along.
If you are really concerned for spoilers then I would look to the likes of FoxNews. They lost this last election. They, and by they I mean mostly the likes of Hannity, really pushed the election to the opposition every chance they got. For instance, consider "Joe the Plumber." Obama makes a mistake and answers a question honestly. He admits what he is wanting to do and what his goals are. He comes right out and says what he thinks of freedom, capitalism and private property. What do Hannity et al do? They run to bring "Joe the Plumber" on their shows to distract from that. Do they want the people to take the time to talk about what Obama said? No. Do they want to force the media elsewhere to have to answer for the words of Obama? Of course not. They want to anoint a working class distraction. A man asked a question, and Hannity &tc give everybody, on a silver platter, something to talk about other than that. Everybody can then criticize him, without ever having to even reference the phrase "spread the wealth," and give all the people reason to believe that they have answered the issue.
And why would that work? Why would people think that attacking "Joe the Plumber" has any real impact on the issue? I mean, what did he have to do with it anyway? Who cares what foibles he has since he only asked a question, and the answer is what matters? Of course, normally that might have been so. Except that Hannity and others kept bringing Joe in for his fifteen minutes, which meant that everybody at home thought that he really was the issue. Fox played the game for them, and gave them all just the setup they needed to run through the defense unscathed. If spoilers really do bother you then you should look at the GOP, who chose McCain and ran his campaign in magnificent self-destruct manner from the start, and the "right wing" media types, like Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly. They did everything they could at every turn to get Obama elected. They really spoiled it.
Enjoyed our back and forth though. Have a nice evening.
So did I. And I hope that you also have a wonderful night.