Over here in the States
Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 02:58AM Politico is asking the Republican Party Leadership what they need to do to gain back control. In response I e-mailed the reporter and asked him to include my post with the leadership ones. All the post are on my blog, but I thought I would share my own here.
The Leadership of the Republican Party are Delusional
And that's putting it nicely.
The party is top heavy with middle of the road dinosaurs that have served too long, and long ago lost touch with a base that believes in the simple things that they have forgotten. The party is run by inside the beltway sycophants that don't have any true beliefs let alone the will to fight for the Constitution or conservative principals.
The party Leadership set the primaries up to give the nomination to John McCain a man that is despised by over 80% of the Republican base. They depended on the base's hate against Hillary Clinton to carry the election for them.
No one predicted the rise of the Messiah Barrack Obama. Not even Hillary.
Add to that 2 campaigns 1 aided and abetted by an in the bag press corp that refused to delve into anything that would cast a blemish on the Messiah. 2 a NON-Campaign on the McCain side. The picking of Palin as VP was the only reason he got 57,000,000 votes. With out her he wouldn't have even received 40 million. Especially if he had his choice of Lieberman as a running mate.
It is time for a purge of the Republican leadership, or a split in the party into 2 distinct parties. To split the party would be insanity but how else do we remove 2/3rds of our elected leaders who have been corrupted by the inside the beltway mentality.
What we need are fighters in the style of Gingrich. People willing to set goals based on the foundations of the Constitution, Goldwater, and Reagan. People who are willing to vocalize those principals without fear of what is going to be said about them in the N.Y. Times.
We also need to fight against the litmus test of abortion. The Religious Right is a key group but the issue of abortion is a distraction from the main goals of the party.
The base wants other things on a higher priority. First of all Tax cuts, and a major cuts in government spending. The Second is ILLEGAL immigration. Our border has become a war zone worse than Iraq, yet it is an issue that is ignored by our leadership. Third Drilling for domestic oil, and the conversion of coal and shale oil to refined oil. We are sending 700 Billion Dollars a year to our enemies for a resource that we have plenty of. All in the name of saving the sage hen which is nothing more than a desert pigeon.
We also need to explain the true threat of terrorism that this nation faces, and the reasons this war must be fought. Disengagement will only encourage the enemy not placate him.
Standing on basic conservative principals wins elections, that has been proven over and over, Running as Liberal Lite brings no one to the polls. How many elections do we have to lose for that to be understood?
As long as the party stays on the course that it has chosen we will remain the minority. When Pelosi, Reid, Clinton or Obama spout their socialistic agenda they need to be challenged vocally and with the common sense that proves them wrong. Yet our leadership remain silent.
If you don't fight for our principles why should we fight or vote for you!
Patrick Van Roy
The City Troll
Republican Party
posted by City Troll
Updated add on for Mahons
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (76)
I suppose continuing denial may work for you, but it is crystal clear that Palin was a drag on the ticket and not a benefit. The claim that she provided 17 million more votes is frivolous. I don't mind you borrowing the title of my old series, but you should go whole hog and strive for my accuracy.
as far as what goes on in the republican circles mahons you are a clueless new yorker.
In other words my friend it is beyond your understanding or perspective
tell me just how many republican commitee meetings have you attended?
I have attended zero republican committee meetings, zero dentist conventions. zero teas with the Queen, zero Hollywood Press conferences and zero landings on the moon.
Yet despite missing out on such happenings, I seem to have been able to make it through this wicked world with a fair understanding of events, certainly a higher understanding than you (a low bar I know), and one that has allowed me to comprehend basic facts. I suggest you try that some time, because wishing, as we say here in New York, does not make something so.
Mahons we know your an expert on zero gravity it shows in your posts and comments.
if you want to convince yourself that you have your finger on the pulse of the republican party you go right ahead pour yourself another pint and believe that.
It reminds of the reporter I can't think of her name at the moment but she was quoted after Reagans landslide victory "Idon't understand how this can happen no one I know voted for Him"
You were wrong on predicting the results of the election, and now wrong on the far easier task of interpreting those results. Palin was a drag on the ticket, even Republican exit polling shows that. You don't have any factual credibility here anyway so inventing things certainly won't diminish your reputation. But since you have nowhere to go but up, accepting the basic facts of what has happened might help you start your way back to reality.
no McCain was the drag on the ticket, Palin was the breath of fresh air. McCain could not get the base to turn out for him it's as simple as that.
As for being wrong on the election so what? The list of wrong things that people that have posted here goes deeper than me.
If the press were neutral and did their job Obama would have been unelectable.
He did win and will be President I can hope that he does a good job, but the reality is that by the end of his administration the country will be much worse off.
don't worry though I'm sure it will be still blamed on Bush
Troll - You mistake your wish for reality. You may like Palin better than McCain, but she was objectively a drag on the ticket. As for being wrong, anyone can be wrong from time to time, but you have turned error into an art form. You embrace the incorrect as Valentino would have embraced a lover. You cling to the consistent catastrophic conclusion that your desires are universal among the majority of Republicans. You are a master of mistatement, a prince of pauperish analysis and the Field Marshall of Failure.
The base loved Palin, and brought them out in droves for Mccain. She didn't bring in indies though.
(I love watching Yankees fight each other!)
They would have voted for McCain anyway. Sarah Palin was a short term burst of excitement in an otherwise dull Republican campaign, but like a Fireworks display her appeal was always going to be momentary .
PS - I'm not sure who Mahons has the most prickly love/hate relationship with here: Patty or Troll ;)
I don't thinl so colm. Many Republicans were going to sit the election out until Palin got them off their hands. How many? Don't know.
Believe that Charles is correct. She was ( and is ) a rock star to the base, but she repulsed independents, including independent/middle of road/professional women as far as I can tell.
If that is so then the base were very shallow indeed.
The base doesn't win elections, the middle does. And the base were going for McCain anyway (even if some where unhappy). Please read the actual numbers & results. Palin killed him with women, moderates and even other Republicans. If he ran with Romney or a like candidate he would have done a lot better. Given the handicap of running Republican this year, he made a terrific showing.
45 more days of Bush - ah time.
Colm - neither hate or love, I just won't let them get away with things when they turn to their dark sides.
Palin brought out a factor of the base she definitly gave McCain a boost amongst conservative republicans.
McCain should have never been given the opportunity to lead the ticket.
the party insiders set the primaries up so that liberal state that don't usually even vote republican led the way and then then spoiler Scmuckabie kung on to just draw votes from Romney
all in all less than 70% of the republican base voted and that is John McCaons fault along with the party leadership.
The point of this post was a response to a set of article listed on Politico all the article can be found on my blog.
Conservatism as articulated by Goldwater and Reagan wins liberal lite leaves voters at home
Mahons is ow become the judge of what is the darkside of the Republicans...lol
Typical liberal you fear what you don't understand and as a liberal you can never understand conservatism
Troll - McCain wasn't given the nomination, he won it. As for Goldwater, he was crushed in 1964, learn your history. But perhaps you think he won? It is as logical as claiming Palin added to the ticket instead of detracted.
What you don't understand or won't admit is because Palin made the ticket more attractive to you, doesn't mean she made it more attractive to voters overall.
'The base doesn't win elections, the middle does.'
And that is what the Republicans fail to understand.
'45 more days of Bush - ah time.'
ah yes!
You'll miss him when he's gone :)
no you refuse or are unable to see the shananigans that took place to give that McCain the early victory in the primaries
they did the same thing fore Dole
And goldwater won it just took 16yrs to count the votes figure it out
You'll miss him when he's gone :)
Well Colm, funny enough , he will be missed, purely for comedic reasons. Although it is frivilous to say that, considering the death and destruction he is responsible for.
I will add this though: I think Laura Bush was a lovely first lady. While she had a different style than Hillaryfor example ( she just doesn't have Hillary's brain or ambition) , I always thought she was a lovely woman.
no pinky the death and destruction blame falls directly at the feat of Islam
Troll
Are you saying the American Conservative electorate are a tad slow ?
The mistake the Republicans made was thinking that the fundies put Bush in office in the first place. We read so much about how he got the base out in huge numbers ( which he did), but that is never what won him elections, it was middle who did it.
In 2000 ( leaving aside the question of whether he won or not) the middle voted for him, because of Clinton fatigue. In 2004, the middle voted for him because of the war ( and the fear-mongering Rovian politics).
In 2008, there were different fears- real fears this time- never ending war, and a collapsed economy- and yet again, the middle responded, by rejecting a third Bush term in Mc Cain clothing.
no pinky the death and destruction blame falls directly at the feat of Islam
Yeah! America flys thousands of mile across the world to kill Iraqis in order to expand their sphere of dominance but it's the fault of that most monolithic enitiy, Islam! Great piece of 'Troll logic'.
yeah Peter thats why were in Iraq for the oil and to enrich haliburton...lol
Ots also our fault that since 9-11 the religion of peace has committed 12,375 acts of terror world wide.
why don't twist another joint and keep on with that deep thinking
Ots also our fault that since 9-11 the religion of peace has committed 12,375 acts of terror world wide.
Boy, that 'war on terror' has been a great success then?
yeah Pinky people like you are really doing your part to fight it.
mean time there hasn't been another attack in the US has there?
Sorry Troll. I'm really naive. Of course the purpose of the invasion was to liberate Iraqis from a brutal dictator... and former friend *cough couch*
I never could figure why those Eye-rakis didn't greet your bombs with gratitude. And still no streets named after George Bush. Ungrateful bunch.
'yeah Pinky people like you are really doing your part to fight it.'
And you Troll? What are you doing to fight it?
And why would I fight a war that I don't believe in, and by all accounts, even your own, has failed dismally?
'mean time there hasn't been another attack in the US has there?'
And that meaures the success /failure of the 'War on terror" Is it only American lives that matter in th world?
( Incidentally, I heard a US terrorism expert say just this week, that citing the lack of attacks on US soil is a false measure of success/failure because you first have to prove that any REAL attacks were actually planned and in the stage of taking place,)
Can you do that?
The expert could not.
Back to topic - Palin was political kryptonite. The Republicans will be beating themselves for a while (with greater intensity as the new administration gets sworn in), but they'll recover and challenge again.
The expert could not
But I'd say Troll probably can! :)
the expert should read the arrest lists...
and yes american lives are the only ones that count when it comes to war
the topic was never Palin
american lives are the only ones that count when it comes to war
So do you care how many Iraqis you kill? An honest answer please.
no
At least you're honest. So many pretend to give a shit.
the expert should read the arrest lists...
and yes american lives are the only ones that count when it comes to war
The expert knows as you seem to Troll, that terrorist attacks have increased dramatically since the 'War on Terror' began. So those arrests list probably did not impress him, either.
If the arrests were meaningful, in any way, terrorist attacks wd have decreased, would they not?
As for American lives, being the only lives of any importance- I am sure the Brits among us here are grateful to hear that.
But at least you are 'savvy enough' not to hide you feelings.
were not fighting the Brits and I guarantee that to a British soldier his comrades are the only ones that matter
as for the arrest lists they prove it has worked in the US and once again to an American that's what counts
using your logic pinky the US should cry, fight or bleed for every nation of the world.
Each government is responsible for their peoples own security
"as for the arrest lists they prove it has worked in the US and once again to an American that's what counts"
Arrest lists seem to suggest that you have arrested the wrong people- because terrorist attacks have increased dramatically since the US led 'war on terror," and to repeat- one would have to prove that attacks on the US were being planned and in advanced stages- i.e. in the process of taking place, before claiming that anything has worked.
Here Troll informs us that the 'global war on terror' is in fact merely about saving US lives.
And all that outrage about Mumbai!
using your logic pinky the US should cry, fight or bleed for every nation of the world.
Actually, I base my argument on Bush 'logic'. It is a world-wide battle, is it not?
I happen to agree that it is a world-wide battle- I just disagree that dropping cluster bombs on innocent civilians wins the hearts and minds of the people you need to win the battle.
The 'war on terror' can only be won through the collaboration of Muslim/NonMuslim states and people- and images of screaming Muslim children running from US bombs will never win that cooperation.
By your own words Troll, you have inadvertently admitted that so far the strategy has failed. You cited the increase on terror attacks- that spells failure, by any reasonable measure.
no it just means more cluster bombs need to be dropped on "innocent" terrorists
Mumbai was targeted against American and brits and jews besides show me any post where I expressed outrage over mumbai
Why cluster bombs though?
And most of the dead of Mumbai are Indians, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know.
never pleased when terrorists take the lives of innocent people.
and I was being sarcastic about the cluster bombs in response to idiots that claim we target civilions which is pinky's whole argument.
civilians get killed in war no army more than the american army try's to keep that number as small as possible
Pinky,
" Incidentally, I heard a US terrorism expert say just this week, that citing the lack of attacks on US soil is a false measure of success/failure because you first have to prove that any REAL attacks were actually planned and in the stage of taking place,"
It's a false measure of success because 1000s of Americans have died abroad, to say nothing of 100s of thousands of Iraqis!
Here's a measure of the success of the 'war on terror': A handful of terrorists spent a few thousand dollars, caused billions of dollars worth of damage, and provoked a trillion dollar response. Cost-benefit analysis? Epic fail, unless you're a terrorist.