“Why did a moderate McCain win over the more conservative candidates in the Republican primary?”

Because more people voted for him.

“This means that it was the blue states that got to pick the Republican nominee.”

Maybe we should kick the Blue states out of the union…

“And let’s not forget that some of these states have open primaries where Democrats can cross over and vote in the Republican primary.”

Oh of course, the usual suspects.

“No Bill, it was not “we” but “they” who got to select our nominee.”

Congratulations, a conspiracy theory worthy of a camel trader. The democrats were in a tight race trying to decide between Clinton or Obama. Any of them who voted for McCain were certainly more than offset by an ACTUAL republican effort to keep Clinton in the race.

“If we want to avoid this mistake in the future, we need to convince the Republican Party to hold its first primaries in “Red States” instead of “Blue States.”

Why not… have fun with that.

“Why should the blue states Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first every time?”

Both states used to be red.

“Shouldn’t we reward red states by letting them choose first?”

The democrats might have something to say about that, and since they are unified and we like to take pot shots at ourselves I think they will get their way on it.

“Below is a list of the 12 states that voted for McCain in the primaries.”

So instead of attracting more voters we should fix the system to prevent what you might call RINO’s from skewing the results. I really don’t think that is going to get us out of the doghouse.

Here’s a crazy idea, let me know if I need to be medicated: Instead of alienating people who might be of benefit to us why don’t we focus on some modest goals like running competent people, getting them elected and NOT SCREWING UP. That way the republican brand wont be in the toilet. Instead of jumping at people who pay the social conservatives lip service and then proceed to spend like Paris Hilton with daddy’s credit card, why don’t we elect some competent administrators who can balance a budget?

‘Kuz they might be RINOs?

Bill Grant said:

“Yup they keep mistaking moderates for conservatives”

McCain got the most votes in the primaries. The “they” you speak of is actually “we”.

Bill’s comment brings up an important question: Why did a moderate McCain win over the more conservative candidates in the Republican primary? We need to understand why this happened if we want to prevent history from repeating itself.

I took a look at the states that held primaries before Mitt Romney dropped out and conceded to McCain. Of the 12 states that voted for McCain in the primaries, only 3 voted for him in the general election. (There will be 4 if Missouri resolves for McCain.) Only 25-33% of the states that selected McCain as our candidate actually voted for him over Obama, and all of the big states McCain won (California, New York, and Florida) voted for Obama.

This means that it was the blue states that got to pick the Republican nominee. And let’s not forget that some of these states have open primaries where Democrats can cross over and vote in the Republican primary. No Bill, it was not “we” but “they” who got to select our nominee.

If we want to avoid this mistake in the future, we need to convince the Republican Party to hold its first primaries in “Red States” instead of “Blue States.” That would help us get a conservative candidate into the early lead. Why should the blue states Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first every time? Shouldn’t we reward red states by letting them choose first?

Below is a list of the 12 states that voted for McCain in the primaries. Only the highlighted states ended up voting for McCain over Obama in the general election:

New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, California, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma

Dead Heat

#1. Michelle Malkin / Laura Ingram
#2. Sean Hannity
#3. Rush Limbaugh
#4. Ann Coulter (Shes #4 only because I have yet to read her books… and only draw my opinion by her commentaries on Fox news)
#5. Monica Crowley
#6. Tammy Bruce

I can possibly understand Bill O Reilly being there since over the last few weeks… of the election he wasnt asking the tough questions when he did interviews with Obama – said he had no problem with Obama…

but even with all that… how could he and Ann Coulter be more hated than The McCain Staffers which should be father along the list.

That list doesnt make sense.

McCain got a LOT more votes with Palin than he would have on his own.

“On his own” wasn’t an option.

if he thinks McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Clinton would have been a viable ticket.”

Where in the hell did I endorse anything like McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Clinton?

I don’t know who MtsEdge is, but he/she sure does love love the strawman argument.

On November 14th, 2008 at 7:34 pm, love2rumba said:

Yup they keep mistaking moderates for conservatives and wonder why the GOP looks like a mirror image of the democrat party and then blame the critics as possessing this nonsensical “MDS” when they balk about bothering to vote for the “R” candidate.

love2rumba, you pretty much summed it up. McCain got a LOT more votes with Palin than he would have on his own. I don’t know who Bill Grant is, but he needs to re-evaluate his position with respect to conservatism if he thinks McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Clinton would have been a viable ticket.

“Yup they keep mistaking moderates for conservatives”

McCain got the most votes in the primaries. The “they” you speak of is actually “we”. By the way, I didn’t vote for him in the primaries.

“blame the critics as possessing this nonsensical “MDS””

Nonsensical? So he got a fair shake here? Seems to me you weren’t saying that not too long ago.

“when they balk about bothering to vote for the “R” candidate.”

Hey, they got the “D” one.

“I have a feeling there are some who would like to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over in the vain hope of a different outcome.”

Yup they keep mistaking moderates for conservatives and wonder why the GOP looks like a mirror image of the democrat party and then blame the critics as possessing this nonsensical “MDS” when they balk about bothering to vote for the “R” candidate.

“But what I don’t like to see are posts that attack the messenger instead of the message. If you disagree with her message, refute it point by point if you can.”

Is the above the first post of mine you have read? For about 6 months there has been an effort to do just that. Tell me, how does one refute, point by point “Daddy Yankee endorsement, another pathetic McCain pander”? The waiving around of Juan Hernandez, a nobody campaign volunteer? Or the fact that McCain knows Richard Armitage… Go through the links tagged “John McCain” and you will see that I have done just what you have advocated, but the “point” that has been a consistent theme here has been to drag the man down. That helped Obama.

“Who’s being unfair now? McCain’s run for President is over but his career is not over.”

He is pretty much through as a force to be reckoned with. If that isn’t so we can probably expect more of your “Emmanuel Goldstein 2 minutes of hate” from Malkin.

“t’s important that we do a postmortem on this election so we can learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.”

Indeed, is that what: “John McCain can claim a victory. He has won the Right Wing News blogger poll for “Least Favorite Person on the Right” was intended to be? Or just another cynical set up?

“I have a feeling there are some who would like to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over in the vain hope of a different outcome.”

I have the same feeling. Indeed, I couldn’t agree more. It seems that we are more comfortable with a scapegoat and a martyr. Next time out we are probably going to let the perfect be the enemy of the acceptable and either insist that we send out some imbecile who pays better lip service or worse; some genuine imbecile like Alan Keyes in the vain hope of a different outcome. Meanwhile the country suffers.

Bill Grant said:

The degree of visceral venom that has been directed toward the man here went far beyond fair ages ago. It didn’t cost the election but it DID cost votes.

When something inaccurate or “unfair” is posted here, I welcome posters who correct the misinformation and present the truth. I believe Michelle does too. But what I don’t like to see are posts that attack the messenger instead of the message. If you disagree with her message, refute it point by point if you can. Educate us by giving us examples of untruths or unfair statements, but don’t go off on emotional tirades about how “unfair” the posts are without giving any specifics to back it up.

One would think that now that she has gotten what she wished for; his career is over, that she would let up. Nope.

Who’s being unfair now? McCain’s run for President is over but his career is not over. He started his run for President as a Senior Senator and he’s still a Senior Senator. He’s never been anything more.

Unlike Bob Dole, McCain did not resign from the Senate to run for President. He still has the power to reach across the aisle to the majority party and try to create another diaster like McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy. So Michelle Malkin has as much of a right and a duty to keep us informed about McCain now, as she did before.

We can’t just forget about the election or we are doomed to repeat history. It’s important that we do a postmortem on this election so we can learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. (Although, I have a feeling there are some who would like to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over in the vain hope of a different outcome.)

Even when roundly criticized by many of her fellow conservatives for her hate-filled negative rants she absolutely REFUSED to stop her shrill and nearly constant harping day after day after day… right up until the day before the election.

Have to admit, someone reading the continual unfair effort to trash McCain while trying to lure senior citizens into a rental van that they drove 4 hours to a battleground state in order to get them to the polling center to keep Obama out might make them question whether or not such treachery should be rewarded with credence as a credible “conservative”.

Give it a rest, Bill!

Keep kicking him when he is out…

You keep blaming Michelle and this forum for McCain’s loss.

The constant unfair and unhinged haranguing didn’t help.

So why do you want us to toe the party line like a bunch of branded sheep?

That is exactly what I don’t want. If we don’t have an honest assessment of what we did wrong rather than setting up a fall guy and a martyr than we are going to keep losing and become more irrelevant.

Why do you criticize Michelle and this forum every time something negative is said about McCain?

The degree of visceral venom that has been directed toward the man here went far beyond fair ages ago. It didn’t cost the election but it DID cost votes. One would think that now that she has gotten what she wished for; his career is over, that she would let up. Nope.

Don’t we have the right to “dissent” and to “think independently” like your hero, the Maverick?

If you think a lot of what has gone on here is independent thought…

A Conservative stands on principles and doesn’t abandon them just to win an election.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with what has been advocated here is either a RINO or a non conservative. Seems to me that a lot of “conservatives” here just want the inverse of what a lot of “liberals” are after; an ideological nanny state that minds everyone else’s business. That however is besides the specific point that McCain has not gotten fair treatment on this blog. I haven’t seen anyone try to argue that he has, just tell others to “Give it a rest” for pointing it out.