Is it that difficult to figure out? That Mitt Romney's people and the Bushies were out to sabotage both McCain and now Palin?

Don't you know that that is why McCain pulled out of Michigan, because the Romney people were screwing him over?

God, you journalists really are a fluffy-brained lot, aren't you?

Yeah mikeoutwest, that's why he lost - because people were out to get him.

It had nothing to do with people preferring the other guy. It's never because of that when a Republican loses.

I also read that Romney's people were sabotaging Palin.

All this talk about the republicans imploding is nonsense. It's the same after every election. McCain didn't lose by that much given the conditions (ex., Bush and the economy).

People assumed it was because of Obama's race that McCain stayed so competitive. Maybe it was a combination of Obama's inexperience and McCain's strengths.

Conservatism is not dead. It just needs some clarification. :-)

It appears that it still isn't understood just how many people were lost due to the far right stances put forth during this campaign as embodied in the pick of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. Many evangelicals were put off by the nastiness that came out of the McCain campaign. If a campaign is going to run on the "Christian" platform, then that campaign best exhibit Christian principles or be deemed hypocrites. Not all Evangelicals are James Dobson or Jerry Falwells. There are many who believe in the separate of church and state and to continually bring in a particular agenda will continue to turn us off.

I know of so many, myself included, who were thrilled when McCain became the nominee. However, one bad decision after another, his arrogant and hard-line attitude on foreign policies and his choice of a decidedly unprepared and inexperienced running mate raised serious questions regarding his ability to govern.

I've left the Republican party as it no longer represents me and my views. Neither do the Democrats so I am now a registered independent. If the Republicans continue to run campaigns the way they did this one, continue to be far right rather than centerist and don't stop whining and complaining about being attacked when they are doing even worse, they can be sure that they will continue to lose my vote and many others.

When everything settles down & everyone stops blaming each other for the failure of the McCain campaign, perhaps the GOP can spend some time reflecting on why they lost and how they need to move forward... just like the Dems had to do when they lost to Bush for the second time. I recommend listening to David Brooks.

I think the main reasons why McCain lost are:
1) He already appealed to moderates & independents at the start of the campaign. Instead of strengthening these ties, he alienated moderates by appealing to the conservative base. I hate it when politicians abandon their beliefs or change who then are to try to win an election (see Al Gore, Hillary Clinton).

2) McCain'sbehavior was unpredictable and erratic (halting his campaign, which made no sense, picking Palin, who may be popular with conservatives and people who want their politicians to be "like them", but appears unprepared / uneducated to those who want their politicians to be more knowledgeable than them).

3. Most importantly, McCain never had a clear message. At the end, it wasn't about what McCain would do to better the lives of Americans, but his message was "be afraid of this scary black man who's a socialist & associates with terrorists." I'm glad the majority of Americans saw through these fear tactics and voted for hope. It certainly made me proud to be an American.

I'm tired of the GOP trying to blame the economy for Obama's win.Yes, it influenced his win, but Obama was ahead in the polls before that. Perhaps, McCain was starting to close the gap- we will never know if he would have succeeded. However, when the economic crisis happened, the contrast between the calm, cool response of Obama & the irrational response of McCain certainly made people reflect on who they'd rather have their hand on the "red button".

In the end, McCain lost for a variety of reasons and he shares some of the blame. If the conservatives think Obama won because of the economy and there's no self-reflection, they should be prepared to lose in 2010, too. Fine by me.

Alaska is his example of Palin's appeal across the demographic breakdown of America? Is he high?

Please, Steve Schmidt worked for Dick Cheney. Nicole Wallace worked for Bush. McCain could not separate himself from the Bush legacy when he staffed his campaign with Bush/Cheney/Rove strategists and ran a nasty, devisive, campaign that was completely devoid of any positive message that would have justified voting for John McCain. And, if I recall, press reports indicated that Steve Schmidt recommended Sarah Palin as VP. So, take some responsibility for your work, Mr. Schmidt.

I am a democrat, but have had a positive affection and respect for John McCain until he sold his soul and aligned with Bush and the right-wing to win. The economy was an issue, but it was the way John McCain managed the economy (or didn't) and his campaign that lost him the election. Worse, he lost the positive regard of many independents and democrats who, along with moderate republicans, were his base. The right-wingers will abandon him now that he is not twinned with Sarah Palin. John McCain, in 2000, said about negative campaigning: "There are worse things than losing, my friend." He was right.

AN OPEN LETTER TO REPUBLICANS

Though there is only time for a broad rather than detailed review of the recently concluded election campaign, I must express my astonishment at how badly the process was handled. I do not know who is to blame, nor do I care. I am putting together these impressions as someone from outside mainstream American politics; in fact outside the country entirely. I may be criticised for this 'outsider' position, and therefore many may feel that I have no right to comment. I do so as an ordinary American citizen. I too have a right to my views, and to express my indignation at the way the Republican campaign was handled.
This should not be construed as a tale of Republican sour grapes. It is entirely NON-POLITICAL. What urges me to write and, hopefully, to get this message in circulation is my concern for what these results will mean in the long run. Again, this is not to be personalised. There is much more involved that goes far beyond personal preferences and party affiliations, which I do not have. The following is written out of concern that inefficiency and wrong judgement are ruling the day. The success of America for herself and for the world relies on healthy competition between two parties (and perhaps more) serving as checks and balances. The bungling in the Republican ranks bodes ill for the nation as a whole. We were offered a display of inefficiency and, above all, inability to read the signs of the times. The party has lost its moorings and understanding of its function in American society. It certainly deserved to lose, and badly at that.

1)It was a fatal error to have excluded President Bush from the campaign, making him into a pariah. This played right into the Democrat strategy of damning everything Bush has done during his two terms in office. How easy it was to give a clarion call for change. The Democrat campaign managers must have been giggling the whole time! McCain went along wholeheartedly (I presume) with this strategy, believing in his maverick heart that if he distanced himself from Bush and all that he represents, he would have a better chance at winning. This, I repeat, was a very grave error. It helped the Democrats mount a campaign almost entirely based on creating this monster of Bush, and McCain by association. The 'change' offered owed its success to this very clever strategy. It was never countered effectively, as well it could have been, at any step along the way. The Republican candidate built his entire campaign on seeking to convince his party and the nation that he was different and should not be connected to the Bush administration and its zillion 'wrongdoings'. Therefore, he actually handed over the presidency to Obama which was certainly the way things had to go for the country as a whole. I will deal with this further on.

2)The most valuable asset any candidate can have in such an election is an incumbent president. After eight years in office during a most trying time, am I to believe the rhetoric that there was nothing to commend President Bush for? The entire world is being torn apart by terrorism, EXCEPT AMERICA. This alone should have been the keystone of the campaign. It is undeniable; it is entirely in keeping with the promise Bush made to the nation when he took office and right after 9/11. Instead, nothing was made of this fact, as if it happened by chance and had nothing to do with policies, playing right into the hands of Obama's appeasement bent. Those policies are the sole reason why America has been insulated from attacks. Bush had the courage to pursue what he believed in to the very end. A large part of the strategy was the Iraq War. And yet, though mouthing his patriotism time and time again, McCain, given the campaign strategy, undermined every effort he himself made to 'support the war'. There should have been a positive drive to educate the public as to why the war was a necessary piece in a large design; and above all, by stressing that the war helped keep the terrorists off American soil and spread democracy to an area that had been under tyrannical rule for decades. Cheney must have understood the damage this strategy was doing when, at the very end, he gave his endorsement to McCain. It was too late. Bush-bashing gave Colin Powel an opportunity to endorse Obama, also right before the end. Once again stressing that everything Bush did was a mistake. Once again, no counterattack was mounted. Instead of countering the propaganda, the campaign was devised to strengthen the Democrat strategy. It seems that Harvard minds were just too much to deal with!

3)Nothing was made of the reorganisation the Bush administration brought about in the intelligence agencies. The sharing of information between the agencies is largely how terrorism was kept at bay. This was one of the most commendable achievements of the Bush regime. Not a word, as far as I could gather, was uttered on this crucial policy which other nations are seeking now to emulate!

4)The economic crisis did not originate in the Bush term. As I understand it, deregulation - which in part resulted in the present situation - began in Clinton's time. Yet nothing was made of this. Republicans accepted the blame meekly. This could easily have energised the campaign instead of giving the Democrats another stick to beat Bush with. The whole world realises that the seeds of the economic crisis can be traced back through a number of regimes. Yet, the only counterstrategy mounted was, again, to justify a continued distancing from the Bush administration. At every step of the way Republicans played along and into the hands of the Democrat strategists. What an amazing situation!

5) Clearly America, at this point in time, is not ready for a woman president or vice-president. This was made amply clear when Hillary lost the race. What was demonstrated was that the majority of Americans would even prefer a black man to a WOMAN! This brings me to the most painful aspect of the Republican campaign. The selection of Sarah Palin was only an attempt to draw women to the Republican side, those 'disgruntled' Clinton supporters. It was not heartfelt. This strategy might have helped, but not with such a bungled campaign. The unfortunate part is that Palin will now be blamed for losing. She must have realised the wrong turns the campaign managers were inflicting time and again on the campaign when she was declared publicly a 'rogue'. She was brought in at the last minute and expected to salvage the party from the ills inflicted by its male leaders; what a dreadful situation to be put in. If anything, this campaign in itself has established the plight of women in politics as the most pressing issue at hand. It has exposed the depths of gender animosity; and that in itself is a good thing. At least now this prejudice is out in the open and can be more effectively dealt with. But it is to be feared that given the mediocrity and lack of vision we witness, anything positive will be made negative. We can almost count of it.

6)We must close by mentioning another important example of lost opportunities. As far as foreign policy goes, the truly remarkable achievement of the Bush administration, and the president in particular, was the recently-concluded Nuclear Deal with India. In an attempt by the party to distance itself from Bush, the allegiance of the Indian-American community, which has become influential in US politics, was thrown away, in spite of this admirable breakthrough brought about almost entirely by the president in forming a strategic alliance between the two countries. This accomplishment isolated the communist parties in India, still a formidable force in India, in a single stroke of the pen. The Communists, against the deal for obvious reasons, preferred to force a collapse of the Government by withdrawing support, believing they would succeed. Instead the Prime Minister held firm, supported by the US President and his assurances that America would push through this historic breakthrough in relations between the two countries. We are discussing the two most influential democracies in the world. This was no small achievement. Bush did more for the cause of democracy than all the rhetoric of his adversaries by this far-sighted achievement. And yet there was no mention of this most positive foreign-policy coup.

There could be much more to add to the above. Let this suffice. Often it is easier to see the Big Picture from outside mainstream politics. This is true all over the world. Therefore, my sincere wish is that this Open Letter be circulated especially to the party strategists.
As for the election results, nothing could be more heart warming than to see the black community so elated. The point is that there will now be an extraordinary release of energy brought about by the election results. Channelling that long-suppressed energy is now the keyword. Both parties should join in this noble endeavour. There could be no better way to drive home the point that FROM WITHIN any community must draw out the strength to overcome, - indeed to overcome. After this victory there is no room for the self-pitying, obnoxious negative drain of energy the community has known until now, however justified it may have been. The times have indeed changed. The positive campaign of the Democrats and the bungling of the Republicans have together made this victory possible.
It is hoped that before long the same destiny will unfold for American women. There are women presidents, prime ministers, leaders of all sorts in every continent of the globe. In the 60s the subcontinent alone witnessed the rise to the highest positions in two countries: Indira Gandhi in India and the Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) PM. This was followed by the rise to power of a woman in Pakistan (a staunch Muslim country) and Bangladesh, another Muslim nation. In another surprise development, we see a liberal, single mother leading a staunchly conservative country like Chile, where divorce was only legalised several years ago. Women have achieved outside of America what the Black community has finally attained in the USA after such a long, laborious and painful birthing process.
Next on the agenda is the rise of a woman
to the highest post America has to offer its citizens.


Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet
Director, Aeon Centre of Cosmology
Tamil Nadu, South India

"From: Ana Marie Cox To: Steve Schmidt
Sent: Fri Nov 07 08:50:28 2008 Subject: Re: Calling you in 30
the passing of prop 8... any comment? From: Steve Schmidt
To: Ana Marie Cox Received: Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Calling you in 30 I was disappointed with the result"

...as was his sister. no? (didn't I read this here?) how'd mary or dick cheney like it? and rove, re: his ex-stepfather? all of which is public record. Marriage is a conserving force in society and it's the height of hypocricy to deny it to Americans who happen to not be mormon.

1) repubicans: too exclusive.. not inclusive.. tried to late to co-opt obama's change mantra..without having a focus and history of same.

2) mccanin: should have re-run the 2000 campaign.."agents of intolerance" then currying favor with same...voting against LMK birthday..(did apologize/award belated credit) should not have used the sammy davis line for hugging unpopular pols "seemed like a good idea at the time" too erractic...no original theme...immagration retreat..doomed by economy

3) palin: tragic..but not ready..may never be ready..insult to those women who are ready..in both parties.

4) rommey: five boys..not one in the armed services..could not get away with this in WW2.

5) hillary: if some shoots at you...unless you are a navy seal , special forces, or delta..or a grunt with large gonads; you will not forget the circumstaces.

6) huckabee: lost some of his christian mantle when he remarked that someone "took a shot a obama" when a off-stage noise interrupted his spiel.

7) dems: will they come close to the rocking the socio-economic strata (e.g. FDR and LBJ (the civil rights stuff only)

all the rest...take a long long rest.

When asked about what went wrong his focus was on the need for re-branding and moving the Republican Party to the center in order to control election outcomes.

There was nothing in his answers that demonstrated a heart or soul about anything other than winning.

What is the Republican Party's brand now? In large part smearing an African American with an Arabic middle name as a 'socialist', 'Muslim', 'not really black' and a 'terrorist'. As if the first three were slurs and not already productive parts of the rich fabric of our country (Social Security, the largest distribution of wealth going today, is 40% of our spending).

Now the divide of fear and hate the Republicans deepened in an attempt win is their legacy to the United States of America.

I believe John McCain was willing to distance himself from his own values in order to win.

And that win at all costs mentality is why they didn't get my vote this year.

"So, her ability to lead a broad coalition that can create an electoral majority in the party has not been tested."

Good stuff. LOL x 10 million.

Wow. If Sarah Palin is "an important new voice in the Republican Party", then the GOP learned absolutely nothing in evaluating its reason for failure. They've lost their base in all but the most conservative parts of the country. We are not all Christian. We are not all heterosexual. We are not all supportive of reversing Roe v. Wade. Just keep pandering to the right, GOP, and see where that gets you.

Sad that Mitt Romney's names continues to pop up where it doesn't belong. I've admired Palin and how she was able to empower the base. I do not consider myself to be a Republican but rather a moderate conservative. McCain was fighting against all the odds. Regardless if he had done anything differ towards the end of the campaign, I do not believe the outcome would have been different. He was against the side of making History.

As for Palin, I hope she emerges as a force in the party. She was a true bright spot during this election. Thrown into the lion's den, she did the best she could. In the debate with Biden, she did more than hold her own. She's got the good to carry the party. It will be interesting to see which leaders are willing to grab the reigns and take charge.

The Republicans long ago sold their true soul in trying to win over the social conservatives. To those people, anything but their hot button issues (abortion, gay rights, stem cells, etc) are irrelevant (hence, they often vote against their own best interest otherwise). The problem with this strategy, is that it only works when divisiveness works. When the economy goes down, they suddenly notice that their own self-interest.
McCain gets the blame for allowing himself to be subverted into this Rovian nightmare of selling out to those social conservatives. He lost credibility with every other group.
But, you also have to factor in the problem of discredited lies. When John McCain's stump speech included saying that Obama will raise their taxes and not one of those people earned anywhere near $200K/year, who did he think he would fool? "Joe the Plumber" was a similar story - not a thing about his "worry" was real; his income is well below $200K, even if he could buy the plumbing business, it earns well less than $200K a year, so his "worry" was fabricated nonsense and he will do better under Obama's plan. People do notice.
Likewise, claiming that Obama palled with Ayers when it was clearly not true. Likewise, calling him a socialist. These all ring hollow. So, Mr. Schmidt needs to consider that their failure was as much by bold-faced lies. This works for short periods, but is not sustainable.
The Rove legacy sadly is to win over the centrists and independents with plausible sounding messages (e.g. compassionate conservatism) while riling up the base through the churches (get them frothing over social hot button issues so they ignore all else). McCain lost that thread and I hope that the Republicans can lose it too; it is time to go back to sound economic conservatism, and not selling out to divisive and hate filled social conservatives. That could a real legacy for John McCain.