Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[GatewaySnayke]

Christopher Buckley has resigned from the National Review after his article where he declared that he's voting for Obama.

As for the mail flooding into National Review Online—that’s been running about, oh, 700-to-1 against. In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot. Lethal injection would be too painless.


***

One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.”


***

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

The only thing I don't like is that he called Reagan a "real" conservative, but these are strong words. The Republican party is truly in shambles.

[Jocephus]

Christopher Buckley has resigned from the National Review after his article where he declared that he's voting for Obama.

damn, this ig'nant propaganda feeding poster thinks thats interesting news

[Radbird]

Where do people get the yard signs with candidates names on them?

I don't know, but our next door neighbors (last time I was home) were the only ones on the block with signs, and they have 3 McCain signs and 1 Bob Schaffer (Repub Senate candidate) in their yard, and McCain-Palin bumper stickers on both cars.

We've never displayed any kind of political signs.

[GatewaySnayke]

Christopher Buckley has resigned from the National Review after his article where he declared that he's voting for Obama.

damn, this ig'nant propaganda feeding poster thinks thats interesting news

Damn straight it is.

[Jocephus]

Matthew Dowd, a prominent political consultant and chief strategist for George W. Bush's reelection campaign eviscerated John McCain on Tuesday for his choice of Sarah Palin as vice president.

Dowd proclaimed that, in his heart of hearts, McCain knew he put the country at risk with his VP choice and that he would "have to live" with that fact for the rest of his career.

"They didn't let John McCain pick the person he wanted to pick as VP," Dowd declared during the Time Warner Summit panel. "When Sarah Palin got picked instead of Joe Lieberman, which I fundamentally believed would have given John McCain the best opportunity in this race... as soon as he picked Palin, that whole ready versus not ready argument was not credible."

Saying that Palin was a "net negative" on the ticket, he went on: "[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that."

The other panelists were surprised, a bit, by Dowd's bluntness. Not least because McCain's well-known campaign motto is "country first."

"No, I don't agree," said Mark McKinnon, a former McCain aide, after chiding Dowd for claiming particular insight into McCain's soul.

"Well," responded Dowd, "that's even more disturbing than my thought" -- the implication being that it would be truly frightening if McCain didn't know how bad Palin truly was.

Time columnist Joe Klein summed up what seemed to be the panel's Palin consensus.

"It was a gimmick," he said of the pick. "It was one of the most disastrous decisions I have seen in a presidential campaign since I've begun covering them."

Later in the session, Hilary Rosen, the Huffington Post's Washington editor at large, noted that the Palin pick had been successful in energizing the Republican base -- and McCain himself. But Dowd wasn't biting.

"To me it is like Halloween," he said. "You get energized by eating all that candy at night but then you feel sick the next day."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 34570.html

[Jocephus]

more liberal propaganda:

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 34595.html

[Hungary Jack]

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

+

My only contention is that it actually all got started in 1992 when George H Bush intoned "family values" in his nasal dweeby voice. The conservative party has been neither ever since.

[greenback44]

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

+

My only contention is that it actually all got started in 1992 when George H Bush intoned "family values" in his nasal dweeby voice. The conservative party has been neither ever since.

It goes back at least to 1980, when Reagan started his post-convention campaign, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, of all places, by intoning his support for "states' rights."

[Jocephus]

richard lewis on olbermann

[/youtube]

[docellis]

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

+

My only contention is that it actually all got started in 1992 when George H Bush intoned "family values" in his nasal dweeby voice. The conservative party has been neither ever since.

It goes back at least to 1980, when Reagan started his post-convention campaign, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, of all places, by intoning his support for "states' rights."

are you guys suggesting that the GOP started pandering to...well, what would you define this group as? This "Family Values", "States Rights", more rural, hawkish group? Or are you suggesting that people like H Bush and Reagan agreed with these types of sentiments and weren't pandering? (I guess it doesn't really matter if they agreed or not)