Wednesday, November 5, 2008

What do we do now? Part 1

We lost. No doubt about it. As I sit in Newark Airport right now, siting next to me, there is a 20 something who looks like he has not slept in weeks wearing a tee shirt that says Planetarians for Obama.

Don't ask, I have no idea.

So, after an extremely disappointing night, what does a conservative do?

Cry?

Yell?

Pack his or her bags and move to Turks & Caicos?

Let's begin with some perspective -- the sun rose this morning.

There will be lots of post mortems on the election. But we can start with this. John McCain thought this was going to be an election about national security. Barrack Obama got his initial excitement going by calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.

In the end, did anyone really talk about Iraq or national security at all? Not really. It was "THE ECONOMY STUPID" come back from 1992. Senator McCain was completely unprepared to address it. Senator Obama, surrounded by bobos, was. And when McCain finally was forced to address the economy, he fumbled badly. It was not his fault really. No one really expected it and for conservatives, we tend , in theory, to think the government should be as light on the economy as possible. I say in theory because it is under a supposedly conservative president that the banks have been de facto nationalized.

So perhaps the first thing we get out of this is that people really care about bread and butter issues. And if we give up on core principles and try to buy popularity, we should expect losing. Given the chose between someone whose actions go against their theoretical principals, and someone who comes out and says the government will give you everything you need, the voter is going to go with the genuine article. If we play "me tooism" we will lose.

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

"It was not [McCain's] fault really."

Oh, PLEEEEASE, Anthony... give it up. (*SNORT*)

"No one really expected it..."

HUH...?!?!

Earth to Anthony!!! While it's true I count myself as one of the most brilliant, well-informed, and prescient individuals ever to walk the earth...

(Laying it on a bit thick...? O.K. Maaaybe so...) (*CHUCKLE*)

...one would think that even the average quarter-wit would have taken the 2006 Election results as... err... a HINT that things weren't going well.

Seriously, Anthony... SERIOUSLY... before you say it, yeah, the 2006 Election result was in large part a reaction to continued failures in Iraq, as well as a reaction to old fashioned political/financial corruption scandals as well as sex scandals which Republicans got themselves involved in, but surely you realize that the borrow and SPEND Lott/DeLay RINO GOP policies were what turned the destroyed the morale of the base - thus allowing the Dems to storm through the breach. (*SHRUG*)

Anthony. McCain was - AND IS - a moron. Don't cut him any breaks. He could have opposed Bush's cheap dollar policies. He could have walked the walk and fought against spending the way Tom Coburn (successfully) did a scant few months ago. (Instead McCain always TALKS a good game but is never successful in actually STOPPING any pork.) (*SMIRK*)

Anthony. McCain could have OPPPOSED the stimulus bill.

Anthony. McCain could have OPPOSED the bailout.

Anthony. McCain didn't NEED to go head to head with Obama in terms of empty and irresponsible spending proposals. (*SMIRK*)

EARTH TO ANTHONY: YES!!! It WAS McCain's fault!!!

"If we play "me tooism" we will lose."

Good man! I'm glad to see we're on the same page. I suppose we just have different styles. (*WINK*)

BILL

Rodak said...

So perhaps the first thing we get out of this is that people really care about bread and butter issues.

People need bread and butter, Anthony. Issues about necessities will succeed in moving the electorate any time that access to those necessities is threatened.
The reaction to need coming from conservatives can always be summed up ultimately by "Get a job, you bum." Never mind that the same conservative is the guy who laid the "bum" off in the first place.
Conservatives tend to have no charity in their hearts. This is the best possible orientation toward your fellow man to have, if you goal in this life is to get rich and take care of "your own." All that it requires is that you limit the concept of "own" very radically.
It's nice that a few conservatives are now--now that they've been pushed to the margins--calling for cooperation.
But, for my part, having been watching poltics since Eisenhower was in office, I can only hope that this time we will no longer need to count on them.

William R. Barker said...

"Conservatives tend to have no charity in their hearts."

Why bother posting nonsense you know isn't true?

I mean, com'on, Rob... how many discussions did we have over at RT where Ed, Moose, and myself dug up the actual stats concerning charitable giving by conservatives vs. liberals?

(*SMIRK*)

Rob. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. (*SMILE*)

"Never mind that the same conservative is the guy who laid the "bum" off in the first place."

(*SNORT*)

First of all, certainly you're not conceding that by and large it's ONLY conservatives who create jobs - are you...??? (*CHUCKLE*)

(I mean... to lay off employees you have to HAVE employees in the first place - no?) (*SMILE*)

Second of all, assuming you're NOT conceding liberal incompetence in job creation... (*SMILE*)... if your position is that ONLY conservatives lay off employees while liberals don't...

(*CHUCKLE*)

You're funny, Rob. (*GRIN*)

"But, for my part, having been watching poltics since Eisenhower was in office..."

Serious question, Rob: How old are you? I was born in '62 and while I of course remember the Nixon era, it wasn't till the Carter years...

(*SHIVER*)

...that I really began "following" politics in an adult sense. (Meaning I was near turning 14 years old when Carter took office.)

BILL

Rodak said...

You see, your response demonstrates that you don't even understand what the word "charity" means in the larger context. You can't see the meaning of the word any further than writing a check to the United Way. That is not what I was talking about.
As for how old I am, if you haven't figured that out to within a year one way or the other, then you haven't been paying attention.

William R. Barker said...

Aahhh... "the larger context."

(*SMILE*)

As to your age... 66?

BILL

Rodak said...

Not quite that old. And, yes, the "larger context." Take off the blinders.

William R. Barker said...

re: Rodak

62?

BILL

* Anthony... since it's your blog, wouldn't you like to play too?

(*GRIN*)

Anthony said...

OK, I'll play.

I think the answer depends on whether Rodak is a "Planetarian for Obama"

Rodak said...

You're getting warmer.