Rusty silver linings

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

(Yes I know silver doesn't technically rust. It's a metaphor, get over it.)

First off, congrats to Obama. He won, and took a few traditional red states with him. I'll post more about that some other time.

For now, time to find the positive. In no particular order:

1. I'll never have to say "President McCain." This truly was a "lesser of two evils" election for me, and now I can set my cognitive dissonance aside and go back to really disliking John McCain.

We can agree on the fact that President McCain would have been awufl.

2. Joe Biden. This man will be endless entertainment for the next 4 years. Late night comics will shy away from Obama jokes, so he'll be the proxy.

I like entertainment, and I like Joe, so either way, sounds fine.

3. Hillary Clinton. Odds of another Clinton presidency just got a whole lot longer.

Also glad.

4. I now have a great comeback line for everyone who keeps telling me what a racist country we are.*

But not a great comeback line for everyone who tells you what a racist YOU are.

5. Pro-marriage passes in AZ and FL, and probably CA, two of which went blue. That suggests we are still very much a socially conservative country.

No, I think you misread things. What it suggests is that social conservatism is no longer an issue that is driving people's votes at the voting booth. People may be socially conservative, but the most important issues they vote on have nothing to do with social conservatism. How else to explain Obama's win in Florida even though over 60% supported a ban on gay marriage? Floridians obviously could agree they don't want gay marriage, but they can also agree that it didn't impact their decision on who should be their president. I hope Republicans misread things and continue to run as the socially conservative party. It doesn't look like it will get them far.

Palin in '12!

6. Four senate races still unresolved, with the R's ahead in all of them. There's a decent outside chance that those idiots in Minnesota may not have elected the worst Senate candidate in a century.

The worst senate candidate in a century? You remind me of the people who claim that Obama was the worst presidential candidate in the history of America. Even if he was awful, and I mean awful, it would take some extraordinarily limited perspective to ever arrive at the conclusion of "worst ever," or, in your case, "worst candidate in a century."

It's obvious a return to conservative roots is in order. The question is, who will take us there? Palin? Romney? Jindal? Kyl? Boehner? After the country gets a taste of full Obama-style liberalism, it's going to be thirsty to wash it's mouth out with some fresh conservatism, but someone needs to articulate it.

Romney seems best positioned. I know some here don't like him, but if he takes measures to solidify his conservative credentials, he could make another strong case. I don't think Palin goes far. The jury is still out on Jindal for me. It's good he's got some time to govern, and to run for re-election.

All is not lost. It's just another day in American politics. The Democrats will have "scoreboard" for a while, but sooner or later the pendulum swings back.

It's a great country we live in.

What are the conservative roots at this point? Traditionally, they have been strong military, limited government involvement in markets and low taxation (fiscal conservatism), and social conservatism. Republicans patched together those 3 very different groups into one party and held it together for a remarkable amount of time. I don't see anyone who can bring those three groups together again, primarily because the social conservatives, who have long been satisfied with a seat at the kids' table and scraps thrown at them from time to time, have decided that enough is enough and they want to sit with the grown ups. The problem is, the other grown ups can't stand them. The traditional conservatives, such as Will and Brooks and even Romney (when being honest), can't stand the social conservatives. Good luck working through that problem.

Republicans for the next 4 years will be fighting for the future of the party. On the one hand, Palin and Huckabee (and others of their ilk), and on the other hand, Romney and Pawlenty (and others of their ilk). Let the battle begin!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, I think you misread things. What it suggests is that social conservatism is no longer an issue that is driving people's votes at the voting booth. People may be socially conservative, but the most important issues they vote on have nothing to do with social conservatism. How else to explain Obama's win in Florida even though over 60% supported a ban on gay marriage? Floridians obviously could agree they don't want gay marriage, but they can also agree that it didn't impact their decision on who should be their president. I hope Republicans misread things and continue to run as the socially conservative party. It doesn't look like it will get them far.

Well, in truth, what drives voters year-to-year changes. Just because it wasn't a major factor this year, doesn't mean it couldn't some other year, cf 2004.

What matters is that this issue resonates with people of all ideologies and demographics, putting No voters in the distinct minority no matter how you slice it. That's encouraging for people who want a conservative agenda moved forward on.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The worst senate candidate in a century? You remind me of the people who claim that Obama was the worst presidential candidate in the history of America. Even if he was awful, and I mean awful, it would take some extraordinarily limited perspective to ever arrive at the conclusion of "worst ever," or, in your case, "worst candidate in a century."

Sure, it's a little hyperbole. But Al Franken is unquestionably among the least qualified and most embarrassing options either party has offered in some time.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

(Yes I know silver doesn't technically rust. It's a metaphor, get over it.)

First off, congrats to Obama. He won, and took a few traditional red states with him. I'll post more about that some other time.

For now, time to find the positive. In no particular order:

6. Four senate races still unresolved, with the R's ahead in all of them. There's a decent outside chance that those idiots in Minnesota may not have elected the worst Senate candidate in a century.

Bump.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Bump.

Did Franken win election?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Did Franken win election?

Not yet, and he may not. But the 4 unresolved senate races are playing out gloriously for the Dems so far.

Stevens fell behind today in the vote, and looks like he will lose. Chambliss is headed for a runoff in a very Republican state. Franken is in a great position to win in Minn.

I am still not convinced 60 seats is a good thing for Dems (I like balance in the govt, and I hate the idea of Lieberman being relevant), but it is within reach.

[Tex]

Looks like he's going to do everything he can to steal it, though. I admit, Democrats are much better than Republicans at making votes in their favor "magically" appear, after the election is already over.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081113/D94E8FJ80.html

[TheAzzuri]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not yet, and he may not. But the 4 unresolved senate races are playing out gloriously for the Dems so far.

Stevens fell behind today in the vote, and looks like he will lose. Chambliss is headed for a runoff in a very Republican state. Franken is in a great position to win in Minn.

I am still not convinced 60 seats is a good thing for Dems (I like balance in the govt, and I hate the idea of Lieberman being relevant), but it is within reach.

The fact that you even remotely think this might be a good thing suggests you are more interested in partisan politics than anything.

For any party to have this much power is sickening. And scary.
________
Reviews Extreme Q Vaporizer

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by TheAzzuri

The fact that you even remotely think this might be a good thing suggests you are more interested in partisan politics than anything.

For any party to have this much power is sickening. And scary.

I think you missed an entire sentence in my post.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you missed an entire sentence in my post.

Everyone here has a reading comprehension problem except you.

Here's more via Powerline on the Franken Election Theft attempts:

Franken has filed a couple of lawsuits: one claims an 84-year-old woman's ballot was rejected because her signatures didn't match. It's false, of course.

Then there's this embarrassment of a Secretary of State:



I wonder if this is what Democrat hacks mean when they say "stay classy!"

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TheAzzuri

The fact that you even remotely think this might be a good thing suggests you are more interested in partisan politics than anything.

For any party to have this much power is sickening. And scary.

Are you referring to this comment?

"But the 4 unresolved senate races are playing out gloriously for the Dems so far."

He did mention that he didn't think 60 Dems in the Senate is a good thing because he likes balance.

I'm just wondering why Cali hates the idea of Lieberman being relevant and how he would be relevant if the Dems had 60 seats. Or did I misunderstand what you're saying, Cali?