Friday, November 7, 2008

"The Reign of Lame"

The brilliant Ann Coulter nails it, as usual. When will the Republican party learn that when it runs a moderate, it loses? Fifty-three percent of registered Republicans didn't even vote for McCain in the primary (not surprising, since many of them never got a chance to choose between candidates in the first place). Ann is absolutely on-point here; the only thing I would add is the urgency of doing away with open primaries.

If you don't think enough of your country to investigate the platforms of the two major parties and register with the one that most speaks to your beliefs and values, then you ought to just stay home. If you don't possess the conviction to pay attention to what's going on until the last second, and are uninformed enough to still be "undecided" hours before a presidential election, then please, sit it out.

Ann writes:

Republicans lost this presidential election, and I don't blame the messenger; I blame the message. How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the "rich," when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

And why should Republican activists slave away working for McCain when he has personally, viciously attacked: John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, National Right to Life director Doug Johnson, evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, various conservative talk radio hosts, the Tennessee Republican Party and on and on and on?

As we all knew, McCain was a weak candidate, but we rallied around him because he was the better of the two choices. In a post 9/11 world, you ought to go with the guy who at least strikes fear in the hearts of America's enemies, instead of promising to sit down to tea with them, but I digress. Then McCain did an incredibly smart thing by choosing Sarah as his running-mate, firing up an uninspired base and commanding a campaign spotlight he otherwise would never have had, given the media's fawning adulation for their chosen "messiah."

Alas, his turncoat staffers just couldn't figure out how to properly unleash the phenomenon that is Sarah until it was too late. Adding insult to injury, now they are sniping to the press about her, spouting outrageous smears that would make Jann Wenner, publisher of US Weekly, proud.

And where is John McCain to defend her? The woman who kept his campaign alive? I suppose "honor" is a selective term for the senator. Too bad Sarah's not a Democrat -- he'd defend her to his death if she were. And therein lies the problem: if it's not a member of his own party screwing up, McCain just can't bring himself to criticize. Thus, it was "hands-off" on a host of important facts, such as the real reason for the economic meltdown (the Fannie/Freddie Dems).

It would have been "honorable" had Senator McCain been forthright with the American people. Instead of offering "straight talk," he had to pander to Democrats. He could've stood with House Republicans against the bailout and truly separated himself from President Bush on a key issue. Instead, he thumbed his nose at them, forcing a "bipartisan" compromise (there's that word again!) that only exacerbated the problem. And now we've elected a Marxist to the highest office in the land!

Read the entire Coulter article. And keep praying for our country.

3 comments:

philly said...

again clueless observations. are you really a writer? sure palin "fired up" he base. but again, this blog seems to have had it's proverbial head iup its ___? it wasn't the "base" silly......he need to fire up soft democrats, undecided's, and left leaning republicans, and independents.
this selection turned off all of them. you're only correct about "firing up" the base, the other 99% of this post is more sour grapes and hot air. that kid mark seems to have a better bead on this....maybe if his mom lets him stay up he'll post later on

philly said...

on second read this is classic republican party backstabbing....yes keep praying alright....that maybe your analytical skills may awaken from the landlside loss induced coma which seems to have sucked any significance from the shallow and useless palin ass kissing on this site? obviously the author has a thing for this woman....

Doc Paul said...

I thought McCain's job was to attract moderates and cross-over votes. Palin did what no other choice could have: energized the campaign, brought huge crowds to rallies, generated donations, and gave McCain a fighting chance. He failed. He offered no vision, just some tics (Fire Chris Cox! Suspend my campaign!). Let's face it, Joe the Plumber did more to frame the economic debate than anything McCain did or said.

But the really sad part? The other choice was worse, and even with every single conceivable advantage (fraudulent and criminal fundraising that allowed him to outspend McCain by a factor of 3 or 4, an ill-timed financial crisis, a bad year for Republicans, unprecedented media bias, etc.), the result was still very close.

If McCain had made any effort to craft a coherent message beyond fighting earmarks, he would have won. So, Obama supporters, take the advice of Han Solo to Luke Skywalker: Don't get cocky, kid. Show us something more than a cool vibe before you expect us all to join the Kool-Aid drinkers in singing your praises. We're waiting, and hoping, for the sake of our kids' futures, that we are wrong about Obama's ability to lead this country.