2008: How wrong was I?

Back in 2008 in the wake of a decisive Obama presidential victory, I wrote a post about how the Republican party could revitalize itself and win back a conservative majority in the United States. Some of what I wrote was knee-jerk reaction that you can see Democrats trying today. The Democrats wanting their own version of Joe Rogan is a prime example. It's a prime example of not only their panic reaction, but also of why I was wrong; the Republicans didn't need their own Joe Rogan when the Democrats owned nearly the entire media landscape, and the idea was actually trash. They needed to connect with voters and we are seeing that personality endorsements don't work; except for maybe president Trump's personality. But not everything I wrote was dreck. Here's an updated and distilled view:

Political movements thrive when they blend strong coordination with local initiative, strategic messaging with genuine engagement, and high standards with openness to fresh talent. A “central command” can furnish resources, set coherent goals, and distribute best practices—yet it must empower grassroots volunteers to adapt tactics to their communities’ unique needs. By partnering with established digital platforms and community media, conservatives can sidestep the costs of launching wholly new networks, while still bypassing hostile gatekeepers.

Effective message discipline need not suffocate authenticity. Instead of rote scripts, leaders can develop concise talking frameworks that guide spokespeople to tell real-life stories and connect policy to personal experience. This balance ensures that communications resonate emotionally even as they remain unmistakably clear.

Data analytics offer unprecedented precision in identifying persuadable voters and tailoring outreach. However, technology should complement, not supplant, the time-tested art of face-to-face conversation. Nothing replaces the trust built when a neighbor knocks on your door to discuss shared concerns. By integrating digital targeting with vibrant local engagement—house-party forums, church groups, and business roundtables—conservatives can forge deeper bonds.

Maintaining high ethical and ideological standards for candidates promotes credibility, but strict purity tests risk excluding mavericks who can energize new constituencies. A balanced vetting process should screen for integrity and competence, while welcoming a spectrum of conservative thought. Mentorship and leadership-development programs can then help rising stars refine their message and grow into principled, effective public servants.

A revitalized conservative movement combines the best of central strategy and local autonomy, harnesses modern tools without losing human touch, innovates in media partnerships rather than overextending, and upholds standards without stifling diversity. By striking this balance, conservatives can remain dynamic, resilient, and ready for every political challenge—today and in the years ahead.

The popular vote total situation

In 2020, Let's Go Brandon purportedly got 81,282,916 votes to Trump's 74,223,369 votes. That's a vote total of 155,506,285 votes.

In 2024, we currently see the following:

There's only a difference of a little over a million votes from 2020.  Either Let's Go Brandon truly did earn a record vote volume and it was erased by Trump in 2024, or, there were 26 million more votes in 2020 than there were in 2016 (~128 million for Trump and Clinton combined):

And if the latter is true, Let's Go Brandon got 11.7 million more votes than did Obama (69.4 million) at his most popular in 2008 when there were 129.4 million votes for the two major candidates. 

Notice in 2016 and 2008 the totals were awfully close? Yet the vote total sudden leapt up 26 million votes. That's absurd unless there was cheating or duplicate votes being counted. 

And if that absurdity holds true for 2024, Trump, whose vote totals went from 62.9 million in 2016, to 74.2 million in 2020 to 77 million in 2024, actually blew out Kamala Harris by a lot more than 3 million votes and cheating still occurred in crazy numbers. If we extrapolate out the vote total growth from 2008 to 2016, an extra 1.4 million, then 2024 should expect a total of 130.8 million. If Trumps' total was 77 million that would leave just 53 million votes for Harris. 

The thing is that so many people went and voted for Trump that they swamped the cheat. It would explain the push polls saying Harris was going to win Iowa for example.  It would explain why the Harris campaign thought they were going to 'win'.  It would explain a lot actually.

But that's just conspiracy theory stuff. Right?

Maybe it's just that the extra 26 million votes appeared due to illegal immigrants.  That would explain why the 2024 vote totals were similar to the 2020 vote totals. 26 million illegal immigrants is nothing to sneeze at. Of course that's also conspiracy theory stuff, right?

Fine.  It's all just conspiracy theory and Trump did just retake the White House. Fine.  I'm skeptical about the 2020 and 2024 vote totals, but I'll still take it.  Nevertheless, to me it just speaks to creating better controls for open and fair voting.  Federal rules. At a Constitutional level. Because something about the 2020 election, and even the Harris total in 2024, still seems off.

Sarah Palin has the right to say "I told you so"

What a contrast.  Back in 2008 you had this from T Boone Pickens, "billionaire investor, philanthropist and energy reform activst" who warned against expectations that domestic oil drilling could ever contribute significantly to American energy independence.

Forget what candidate Obama was saying at the time, about bankrupting coal and promising to increase drilling (something he clearly did not follow through on). Meanwhile the most mocked woman in America, possibly ever in the history of the mainstream media, Sarah Palin was saying this - for which she was roundly mocked as not seeing the reality of American energy:

Flash forward 9 years to this.  Yesterday in Bloomberg:

Donald Trump will tout surging U.S. exports of oil and natural gas during a week of events aimed at highlighting the country’s growing energy dominance.

The president also plans to emphasize that after decades of relying on foreign energy supplies, the U.S. is on the brink of becoming a net exporter of oil, gas, coal and other energy resources...

“It’s about utilizing our abundance of resources at home to create jobs and grow the economy, and at the same time use those to strengthen America’s leadership and influence abroad,” said Michael Catanzaro, a special assistant to the president on domestic energy.

...The U.S. is on track to produce 10 million barrels of oil per day on average next year, according to a forecast from the Energy Information Administration -- a milestone that would shatter a record set in 1970.

For reference purposes only two countries in the world produced 10 million barrels per day in 2016, Russia and Saudi Arabia.  America is indeed on a path to energy independence, after an eight year stall under then president Obama. Granted not all that wealth of resources is from Alaska, but if anyone has the right to say, "I told you so" today, it's Sarah Palin. 

Thursday Hillary Bash - Operation Chaos Redux

There has been a lot of complaining about the Hillary Clinton primary victory in California from the progressive left.  They may have a point.

Then again they may not. This could just be a poorly designed and executed primary system. But, who cares. In the spirit of Rush Limbaugh's 2008 Operation Chaos where he tried to derail Hillary Clinton, to ultimately a bad end result unfortunately, let's spread the existing meme of the question of whether election fraud pushed Hillary Clinton across the finish line in California.

Thursday Hillary Bash - Hecklers

Hillary Clinton was heckled in a speech before 6,500 people in upstate NY.  While her response drew her a standing ovation among the highly supportive crowd, it be-speaks a hypocrisy that she, like Obama, will never be called to task over, by the mainstream media.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton turned the tables on a heckler Wednesday, in an effort to make a point about the need to find common ground to solve the nation’s problems.

During a speech at the University at Buffalo, Clinton first ignored the man’s shouts as she spoke of Buffalo as a model for problem-solving through cooperation.

“Because we can’t move from crisis to crisis, we have to be willing to come together as citizens to focus on the kind of future we want,” she said. As the shouts grew louder from an upper section of bleachers, she added, “which doesn’t include yelling. It includes sitting down and talking.”

Hillary was not afraid to bash Obama during her presidential run of 2008. And her husband has been a frequent attack dog on her behalf in the subsequent years so she didn't have to sully herself with attacks but could them occur nonetheless.  In a cynical effort to prove herself to be in the middle of the political spectrum she's bashed the left as well.  She's bashed the media as not being up to the standards of Al Jazeera.

Most hypocritically, Clinton herself has attacked her political opponents recently in a moment as much do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do as we have seen in a long time;

Hillary Clinton has accused Republicans of pursuing "scorched earth" politics at her first campaign event in five years, raising hopes among supporters that she is preparing to run for US president in 2016.

At a rally in Virginia on Saturday night, the former secretary of state warned that the Republican Party's Right wing was determined to "hijack this great experiment" of America.

She urged the state's voters to elect her friend Terry McAuliffe as their next governor and "lead the way of turning from divisive politics and getting back to common sense and common ground".

"When politicians choose scorched earth over common ground, when they operate in what I call the evidence-free zone with ideology trumping everything else, we see that families in Virginia and across the country have felt the consequences," said Clinton.

Democrats such as Clinton accuse Tea Party conservatives of sabotaging the US political process by refusing to compromise on their opposition to President Barack Obama's agenda.

She wants the freedom to attack or demonize her opposition but wants them to sit down and compromise? That's not compromise or common ground - it's capitulation.

Process versus principle revisited

You can call me lazy for re-posting this. Unfortunately I've got too much going on right now to be able to post the way I'd like to post. But that's not the reason I'm reposting this. I posted this in November 2008, shortly after John McCain got clobbered by 'hope and change'. The core point still holds true. Despite a massive Tea Party driven win in 2010, and a lackluster defense and improvement on that performance in 2012, the same problems still exist. The Republican party remains feckless and adrift. The points I made back then in this post and others still remain true.

I'm reposting the entire post, because the issues it discusses, sadly, still need to be addressed.  At least from the perspective of the GOP.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Sucks. But Don't Blame Congress.

Happy New Year.  Welcome to the era of soak-the-rich, tax-and-spend out-of-control-debt liberalism.  Enjoy.

As a conservative, I view the deal reached and passed by the Senate and then Congress is abysmal in terms of how it approaches the deficit problem.  It focuses on tax increases instead of the real problem - overspending.  It doesn't go far enough towards solving the problem and it smacks of Democrat win.  But the bill that originated in the Senate and was just passed by Congress and will surely get president Obama's signature while folly, is not the fault of Republicans, it's the fault of conservatives.

Yep - it's our fault.  The public sent more Democrats to Congress, and kept the balance of power in the Senate and returned president Unemployment to the White House.  Voters are responsible for the elected representatives making these abysmal decisions.  It's the fault of voters.

But with four years of Obama, conservatives had every opportunity to come up with a viable alternative.  Don't blame Republicans for the host of ersatz candidates.  We lost momentum and we paid the price with a lackluster cast of players.  And as far as an ill-informed electorate, we are to blame.  Yest the media has gone over-the-top in it's biased support of the president and the liberal agenda.  But that makes it incumbent upon us not to insulate ourselves from liberals and become an echo chamber of thoughts and ideas only to ourselves.  We need, will need and have always need to reach out to reachable voters and convince them of the soundness of our positions and the weakness of the liberal positions.  We didn't do that or to be more fair, we didn't do it nearly enough.

As I said immediately after the 2008 election, there's a lot of work to be done, and we've no time to lose in getting them done.

2008 hurricane redux

2008, Democrats attacked the VP nomination and reveled in the hurricane that disrupted the GOP convention:

Not exactly good taste. Flash forward to this year.

Let's hope the election outcome isn't as redundant as the hurricanes' timing and the even more predictable liberal response.

Is Palin a good idea or bad news?

It's seemingly clear that Sarah Palin is not(?) going to be speaking at the GOP convention this year.  That if true, is a mistake.

Via GretaWire:

“…Everything I said at the 2008 convention about then-candidate Obama still stands today, and in fact the predictions made about the very unqualified and inexperienced Community Organizer’s plans to “fundamentally transform” our country are unfortunately coming true. This year is a good opportunity for other voices to speak at the convention and I’m excited to hear them. As I’ve repeatedly said, I support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in their efforts to replace President Obama at the ballot box, and I intend to focus on grassroots efforts to rally Independents and the GOP base to elect Senate and House members so a wise Congress is ready to work with our new President to get our country back on the right path. This is imperative. As President Clinton said in 2008 while candidate Obama and lapdogs in the media were thrashing his wife’s record and reputation, this is “…the biggest fairy tale.” For the sake of America’s solvency and sovereignty we must close this nonsensical book in November…”

(emphasis added)

The irony that everything she said at the 2008 convention still holds true, is all the more reason to have her speak at the 2012 convention. In fact, it'd make a great headline-grabbing stunt. Have her words from 2008 played back on the video screen while she stands at the podium in front of it.

When those comments are done, have her speak and remind people that those words were so right. Maybe a simple "Ditto." or "What she said." followed by a pause as if there were nothing to add would be poignant enough to make the point crystal clear.

It would certainly get media attention. And I guarantee you it would be negative attention. But that would reinforce the idea that the media got it wrong last time, and they are still getting it wrong now. What an opening.

Further, Palin is not toxic.  She is still a charismatic messenger, and now she's unencumbered by the shackles of being number 2 on the ticket.  If the media skewers her and gets away with it, so what?  It doesn't damage the ticket, and that truly frees her up to be a powerful, highly visible attack dog (pardon the term).

Palin at the convention?  It should be a no-brainer.

Career Ending Face Plant

U.S. Olympic gymnast Nastia Liukin's career in gymnastics is sadly ending without a trip to the 2012 Olympics in London as a result (in part) of this spill:

Not pretty.  After a wonderful career she has been outshone at the ripe old age of 23, by other exciting gymnasts who will represent the United States at the Olympics in 2012.  Liukin will not be remembered for this fall as much as her performances in 2008.

President Obama on the other hand, should have had a career ending face plant multiple times with scandal after scandal and failure after failure between 2008 and 2012.  I hope his presidential career ends on this kind of note this year, and then Americans across the country can provide the same sort of face plant to Obamacare that it so richly deserves.

For real?

I've waited the last almost four years for the 2012 election.  My blog started back in 2008 as a reaction to the Obama election, even though I've been a political junkie much longer - in fact most of my life.  What's been a source of frustration of late is that getting closer to the pivotal moment, and into the home stretch on the four year cycle, I've had a full plate at work, a full plate in my personal life, and some issues with my Internet Service Provider (ISP) that have conspired to prevent me from engaging in the consistent level of blogging that I've been able to do in the past.

I can't wait for things to get back on the rails, but if they don't I'm going to borrow a page from Obama and blame my inability to get things done on George Bush.

No?

Well if I can't get away with it, how the heck does the president?  Is he really planning on running on a blame Bush or a blame Congress message? For real?

If you want to take credit for the successes on your watch, you have to be prepared to accept blame for the failures.  I think the president would actually win some voters back by accepting that he has not done a good job on the economy.  He's score some integrity and some credibility points with voters.  Whether it would help him or not is a moot point since the administration is either incapable of recognizing that there is a problem, or incapable of admitting it.

In my case, if I don't post enough over the next 6 months I'll have no one to blame but myself.  Reasons be damned - if I don't do it, if I don't take advantage of the political 'high season' - I will be the one responsible, and the one to have missed out.

I'm just saying.

No way out for GOP

One guy, no so much.

A long and bruising battle for the GOP nomination for president this year didn't bother me. Now it does. What changed? Nothing. Except there was one factor I hadn't taken into consideration. I've been pointing to Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama 2008 as the model for a long and hotly contested primary not being harmful ultimately to candidate Obama. But this year is not 2008 for one key reason. In 2008 Republicans could not keep their powder dry because they were busy waging a primary of their own. President Obama does not have that concern this time around. As he continues to travel the country raising a war chest for the general election, Republicans are travelling the country beating each other up and spending money.

The former issue was one I felt was an advantage for the GOP. It hones their debate skills, campaign skills, speeches and their ability to handle a hostile press. I still feel that despite the wounds, it would be a net positive for the eventual nominee. But the money thing, that's a killer. We need a candidate prepared to go blow for blow with Obama. That will take a lot of money.

McCain trashing Romney

A mere four years ago, the McCain primary campaign put this ad out about Mitt Romney - the same candidate McCain is now inexplicably endorsing.  A pair of flip-floppers if ever there were ones.  Seriously, do not put this guy up against Obama.

Just a reminder.

Newtmentum!! (and what it means for Newt)

Newt Gingrich's surge to be the not-Romney candidate has taken root according to the latest PPP poll.

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's national polling. He's at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.

Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4.

What is most interesting about this poll to me is the not-Romney aspect of the race.  I knew Newt was on the rise and that part of the result isn't surprising to me.  The question on most pundits' minds will be whether Newt has the staying power that Trump, Bachmann, Perry and now perhaps Cain as well, have lacked.  The standard viewpoint is that conservative GOP voters are test driving everyone who isn't Romney to be the not-Romney candidate and it's now Newt's turn.

Uh oh. Rick Perry defending poor debate performance.

Fans of Rick Perry can't be happy with this.  The top story on Fox News website today is about Perry struggling to defend his position as GOP front runner.  There was a story on Fox & Friends this morning too that he's been quoted as saying that the country doesn't need the most polished debater.  That's an important comment that comes in reaction to reactions like these;

Liberal Spin - It's Just Newsweek

I was listening to The Five on Fox today and liberal pundit Bob Beckel was admonishing the panel over the interpretations of Newsweek's latest cover  of Michele Bachman.  The National Organization of Women (NOW) called it sexist.  I don't think it is, but it's certainly unfair.  Beckel even said the cover wasn't the best, but he said it's not right to tar the entire media as anti-conservative because of something Newsweek did.  In principle he's right.  But everyone knows the media is primarily liberal.  In any case I wanted to point out why it can be argued that (1) it's not women but it's conservatives and (2) it's not just Newsweek, it is indeed the media.

Responsible Disagreement

Penn Jillette talked in 2008 about why he wouldn't jump on hammering Sarah Palin. He mentions that he disagrees with her on everything, but he had two reasons for not trashing her. It was a combination of an unspoken sympathy and more importantly, civility. He chastises the left elite for not handling disagreement with her responsibly.

Mitt Romney 2008 vs. Mitt Romney 1986

Here's a relatively recent Mitt Romney clip from his run in 2008.



And here is his Coke commercial from 1986...



Is that the same guy, or am I wrong?

I know, I know I'm violating Reagan's 11th here. But this is mild. And besides, he does look a little and jerk his head a little bit like Max Headroom.  And it's not like I said he was a radical right wing social engineer or anything (mainly because he isn't.  Right wing that is).

Okay here's some due for Mitt.  He seems to be a fiscal conservative.  He'd be better marginally than O.  That's just not enough to make him my first, or fourth, choice.  If it came down to him and O, I'd pull for him but I wouldn't be all that happy about it.  That's all the faint praise I can muster.

Obama caught in his own crosshairs

Get the bumper sticker.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air writes perhaps the most politically astute paragraph I have read this year.  In particular, while the paragraph positions the debt ceiling fight on good ground for Republicans,  his last sentence is amazingly precise on how to deal with President Obama's personal approval ratings - an item which will be key in 2012.

"Expect to hear more of the argument that Republicans agree with Barack Obama — circa 2006, though, not 2011, on debt ceilings. Crowley notes that the White House now says that Obama regrets the vote, and it’s clear that he does, but for all the wrong reasons. Republicans have a good argument in this case that a vote against a debt-ceiling hike is a mainstream and not extreme position, but that enabling trillions more in deficit spending is not just extreme but also extremely dangerous. For the White House to argue otherwise is to admit that Obama really was the emperor who wore no clothes in 2006, just a year before he claimed to have all the expertise necessary to be President of the United States." 

 It sets up the following alternate explanations of the Obama flip-flop on the debt ceiling, none of which show the President in a positive light.

McCain Trashed By Liberal. Surprised?

Sourpuss McCain?

It's odd that my first opinion post of the new year would be one in defense of John McCain. In general I think he's been a political disaster for the Republican party, with respect to everything McCain-Feingold to his left leaning Republicanism to the Gang of 14, to his abysmal showing in the 2008 presidential election, he's not my guy. He's really not.  But during the 2008 Republican primary campaign, is if he were a liberal mole, the liberal media still championed him as a reasonable Republican. That's because he caved on a lot of issues, but probably also because they knew he was beatable.

Nevertheless, that was 2008 and this is 2011.  McCain served his purpose as stooge for the left and now that he's taken a conservative stand on a few issues in order to in part win his primary and in part cash in on the Tea Party wave to bolster his conservative credentials, liberals are leaving him dangling in the wind.  His drift to the right isn't fooling anyone.  Well, it isn't fooling conservatives, but apparently certain liberals are buying into it.  In typical fashion, the perceived conservatism from the left is being met, at least in one case, with open hostility.

Cliff Schecter, "President of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post" , had some very negative things to say, about McCain as recently as three days ago.  In his defense, Mr. Schecter it seems was always on this page about McCain. But this view I expect, will take hold much more strongly in liberal quarters over the next six years because it is convenient for them now;

...the driving force for McCain has been pure vitriol and spite. When I first pointed out this inconvenient truth in my book, that many Republicans, including some willing to go on the record, were sure McCain was motivated by demons and not decency...

So when others still saw McCain’s breaking from President Bush on taxes, healthcare, the environment and gun control in the early 2000s as a sign of “independence,” I tried to point out what I had learned: He was just doing it because he hated Bush for beating him in the primaries. And when others saw his loss to then-Senator Barack Obama and thought he’d work with Obama to display his maverickyness once Obama was sworn in, I warned that in all likelihood we’d see McCain once again do his best Judge Elihu Smails impression.

But even I couldn’t have expected how truly ridiculous he’s become...

Not supporting a bill to prevent military suicides? Really? It’s almost like this particular Scrooge got a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Crazy while napping after an especially large portion of Quaker Oats.

That is really the gist of it, and it’s at the heart of who McCain has been his entire time in Washington, whether most journalists have been willing to see it or not. He’s not a statesman, nor has he ever been. He’s a petulant bomb thrower. He’s Simon Cowell in a suit.

In fact, in a slightly alternative universe, it wouldn’t really be all that hard to imagine McCain standing on a Times Square street corner screaming at passersby that they all deserve to go to hell, or challenging random strangers to a fight to the death using sticks to determine who gets his clay marble collection.

But in this one, he was just elected to another 6-year Senate term. And that tells you a helluva lot about the predicament in which we currently find ourselves as a nation.

And he calls McCain a bomb-thrower? To quote Mr. Schecter himself, "Really?" It's ironic that the place I found this personal attack was in Al Jazeera. I bet Mr. Schecter views Guantanamo as a recruiting tool for Al Qaida. I bet he also feels his words in an Arabic news service that sees fit to show Bin Laden's rants unfiltered as being helpful to the U.S. cause.

In any case, as I've pointed out to conservatives and progressives alike, personal attacks DO NOTHING to advance a healthy debate on issues. John McCain is wrong on a lot issues (and right on a couple), but he does not deserve to be compared to a street corner maniac.  John McCain doesn't need my help defending himself., he's statesmen-like enough and I don't think he's ever bowed to a Saudi King or touched the Queen of England out of protocol.  I'm sure this blistering attack of vitriol hasn't kept John McCain from getting to sleep at night. Defending John McCain isn't the point here.  My point is that once again it is evident that liberals are bound to their Alinsky tactic of personal attack because they either,

(i) find it effective

(ii) have no logic-based argument to put forth

(iii) don't know any other way to debate

or 

(iv) they really enjoy insulting people.

Liberals argue and are purportedly striving for a greater human condition where everyone is each other's keeper and everyone looks after the greater good of humanity.  Wonderful.  It should be disconcerting for anyone who believes in that sort of calculus that many who supposedly espouse that sort of progressivist belief are some of the most hate-filled people around.  Would you trust your well-being to someone who is like that?