Thursday, January 22, 2009

Why Obama won: nine reasons

“The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr., approvingly quoting T.S. Eliot

The following list presents the overt, ostensible reasons why Obama won. I have excluded conjectures which, because they are grandiose and riddled with dot-connection lacunae, verge on conspiracy-theory.

Reasons why Obama won, in descending order of importance:

1. White guilt.

2. Bush.

3. McCain.

4. The PC MC media.

5. Political savvy.

6. Charisma.

7. Retro-Hippies.

8. Black Racism.

9. Birth Certificate.


1. It has been painfully obvious, yet largely suppressed in public discussion, that a prevailing sense of guilt and shame about slavery, as well as civil rights (or relative lack thereof), on the part of the majority of American whites has been the main reason for the abnormally effusive adoration of Obama, and for the collective rapture over his ascension as a sociopolitico-cultural phenomenon. In keeping with the typical incoherence of the PC MC that guides the majority of American whites, the glass half full dimension of this phenomenon is used in order to exploit the emotions of guilt and shame which the glass half empty ordinarily is supposed to arouse. Indeed, because the progress of civil rights and cultural change in America over the past 40 years has been astonishingly exponential, the more apt metaphor would be at the very least “glass quarter empty, three-quarters full—and continuing to fill up with increasing progress, as the Obama election itself reflects. Nevertheless, not only are the white PC MCs and Leftists, following the lead of the Black racists, intent on perversely spinning the glass half full” phenomenon of this unprecedented President as a guilt-inducing reminder of the glass half emptythey imbue that spin with the pregnant subtext of a tendency to perversely reverse the ongoing progress of civil rights and cultural change in America over the past 40 years such that my corrective of glass quarter empty, three-quarters full becomes glass quarter full, three quarters empty. . . ! This perverse spin and the shame and guilt that attend it, however, has not dampened the swooning euphoria of these same whites who put Obama into the White House. In fact, this unseemly euphoria and jubilation is itself the embarrassingly public display and extroversion of their inner incoherence, whereby they are elated, finally in this supremely symbolic and historic way, to be expiating their guilt and shame through participating in White America allowing a Black Man to become President and embracing him as such.

In this historic act that has made them so happy, however, they simultaneously seek to suffer, to feel the pain of the self-chastisement they think they deserve: not only for the regretable fact that it took so long for this to happen in America; and not only for the shameful history
always reminding themselves ominously that it was very recentof the treatment of blacks by whites in America; but also for the quasi-racism they know, or fear, still lurks deep within themselves which they feel they can never fully purge and which thus acts as a constant prick to their conscience. Paradoxically, the Obama Presidency thus simultaneously assuages these tensions that the majority of American whites, infected by the mainstream dominance of PC MC, suffer from, and exacerbates themresulting in this mass display of relief, pride and exultation laced with a darker edge of anxiety, guilt and shame. (One particularly senses this in the stupidly grinning, yet almost affectedly self-composed head-bobbingthe body language of the calmly emphatic Yesof various white celebrities.)

Lest the reader who agrees with my psychoanalysis conclude that these whites who put Obama in the White House are lucidly self-conflicted, I am afraid that would be a rather over-optimistic inference. In keeping with the incoherence, irrationality and hypocrisy of the PC MC (and Leftist) mindset, this psychic tension they have about the Obama Presidency will be, over the next four to eight years, more than likely channeled outward in sociopolitical activism (and/or more or less passive enablement thereof)
thus exteriorizing their inner demons onto actual people, institutions and ideas they find inimical to their dreamof the change America needs and putting that scapegoating tendency into concrete practice through Left-lurching laws and various forms of social pressure.

2. Without the massive irrational culture of Bushbashing over the past eight years, which intensified as those years progressed, and which gained considerable traction by Bushs own ineptness and persona, the largely non-Leftist PC MC mainstream became increasingly predisposed to seek a Democrat savior to the two most psychologically pressing problems of the timethe economy, and terrorism (even if the latter has exerted its force mostly subliminally, due to PC MC inhibitions about publically discussing and analyzing it). This Bush-enabled Bushbashing also considerably galvanized the political will and potential for activism on the part of both the Leftish PC MCs (a considerable minority) and the more blatantly Leftist PC MCs (a smaller minority) extending down into the darkness of Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Nihilists, Black Racists, Muslims, and other motley anti-Americans.

3. McCain waged such a weak campaignnot helped by his own charisma problems (though not anywhere nearly as bad as Bushs)that nearly anybody could have won against him. Not only did he pull his punches in style and tone (packaged as his intention to be respectful and dignified), but also more importantly in substance. There were six major areas of troublesome facts and associations about Obama (discussed at length in a previous essay of mine) that McCain left largely untouched: Obamas Muslim background; Obamas pro-Islam bedfellows and associations; Obamas stand on Islam and terrorism; Obamas anti-American supporters and associates; Obamas foreign anti-American supporters; and finally, Obamas birth certificate problem. McCain also failed to drive home the good record of Bush with regard to keeping us safe from further attacks after 911 (including several attacks that were foiled by intelligence). His choice of Palin for VP also generated a backlash of PC MC and Leftist mockery reminiscent of at least a paler version of their Bushbashing and, whether or not one defends that choice, it became a PR disaster. Once a political or sociocultural action becomes a PR problem in the eyes of the dominant and mainstream PC culture, it more often than not is the kiss of death for the person who committed the faux pas, and only gets worse the more the person tries to dig in his heels to defend it.

4. As a powerful and influential vehicle either enabling, or obfuscating (depending on the positive or the negative cast involved) several of the other reasons on this list, the mainstream media which is overwhelmingly PC MCincluding most massively the news, as well as the entertainment industry which has become more and more intermingled with the newswas another important factor. It accentuated Obamas positive qualities (his political savvy, his charisma), while it obscured his negative side (his history of profound associations with black racism, anti-American radicals and dubious Muslims, his birth certificate problem, as well as, more subtly, the remarkably tame kid gloves with which all entertainers and pundits treated him). Meanwhile, the mainstream media’s unfair treatment of Bush and McCain—and somewhat more surprisingly, Hillary Clinton—also played a significant role, again both in the context of news presentation and news analysis, as well as the grayer area of infotainment punditry, and the influential area of full-blown entertainment including celebrities and comedians.

5. Meanwhile, Obama’s political savvy turned out to be uncommonly sophisticated and deft. The campaign was roughly analogous to Pete Sampras playing a set of tennis with Regis Philbin. It was clear not too long after it began who was going to win. Obama’s political savvy seems to be a combination of social skill, intelligence, political ruthlessness, and perhaps some tricks and shady associations he managed to pick up along the way in his climb up the ladder of the infamously corrupt Chicago system.

6. Obamas charisma has been a major factor in his success, irrespective of the race factor. While everybody, including comedians who ordinarily leap with alacrity to lampoon politicians, treated Obama with unusually soft kid gloves, and while this was largely due to the reverse racism of PC MCnevertheless his innate poise and grace facilitated his imperviousness to the kinds of mockery all other politicians have had to endure.

7. An important part of his campaign success related to #1 (white guilt) has been the depth and breadth of his ability to tap into the veins of counter-cultural Leftism that run deep in the recent history of America and have never vanished from its society nor from the psyches of millions of PC MC peoplewhether it is the older generation who were of age in the 60s and remember its ideals fondly, or whether it is younger generations who idolize those values in various retro ways. Reading of the types of individuals and groups that supported Obama, one becomes astounded at how many different flavors of Leftistranging from pro-Castro and pro-Mao Socialists, to Anarchist artists, to Communists, to ex-Black Panthers, to ex-Weathermen revolutionaries, to radical gays and lesbians, and so many other varities of disaffected anti-American Americanscame out of the woodwork to voice their emphatic enthusiasm that more often than not merged into outright adulation for the man. (One of them, pro-Castro radical Carl Davidson, just to pick a name out of a hat, had been the type of radical whose extremism pushed him into a more or less apolitical existence, such that he even found John Kerry in 2004 insufficiently “progressive—and yet, when Obama came along, Davidson rediscovered his political enthusiasm and idealism.)

As I argued in my previous essay linked above, there has been an underlying nostalgia for the 60s in American society coupled with a nagging feeling that the counter-cultural ideals of that decade have been somehow betrayed or at least compromisedsold out is the appropriate termby the Yuppification of both the original Beat generation and subsequent generations who become too easily sucked into the bourgeois materialism of the Capitalist System. While among the softer PC MCs who harbor these feelings they may admit that a good deal of the 60s ideals were unrealistic and untenableand sometimes even flat wrongthey nevertheless cannot shake a deeper sense that the values that really matter (peace, love, harmony, tolerance) stemmed from the 60s cultural revolution that changed, or tried to change, America. Many among them thus have felt not only nostalgic for those ideals through the intervening decades but also itching for a way to revive them in one way or anotherand, more importantly, for a way to assuage the nagging guilt they feel for having settled into lifestyles that they know are inextricably bound up with various unethical compromises, if not outright corruption or even evil (particularly involving purported exploitation of Third World countries): i.e., the nagging guilt they feel for selling out” to Yuppification. They need to feel reassured that somehow they can still “make a difference (short of giving up all possessions or joining the violent Revolution). The need to feel reassured that somehow they can still find a way to be ethical notwithstanding the lifestyles in which they are enmeshed that seem hopelessly entangled with a complex globalist System that engages in what they think are innumerable unethical tendencies and practices around the world of varying degrees. The Obama Dream represents a resurgence of the possibility of just such a reassurance, revival, and realization, of those ideals. Never mind that Obamas Centrist Revolution is largely a fantasy, even more unrealistic (if that be possible) than the Gnosticism, Leftism or PC MC from whose currents it draws most of its substance and inspiration: Like many other fantasies throughout history, it has proven to be a powerful intoxicant to masses of peoplein this case, all those millions of PC MCs who form the majority in America.

8. While there was a very small and cranky and rag-tag minority of blacks who felt Obama was too much of an Uncle Tom for them, the vast majority swung behind him and turned out to vote in unprecedented numbers. And while a good deal of this reflects honest and admirable traits of civic pride, cultural pride, and a revitalization of faith in the system among blacks, there was the darker side to this : Black Americans were responding, positively, to the message Obama telegraphed to them, that he was on their side in the welter of negative emotions they continue to nourish against white Americawith particularly masterly skill in turning the Jeremiah Wright controversy to his favor while at the same time winkingly letting black Americans know he and Michelle felt their pain (if not also their hatred). His Inaugural ceremonies only added sophisticated layers of this skillful blaxploitation: He had, for example, Reverend Joseph Lowerywho has stated that he found nothing wrong in Wrights flamingly virulent anti-white racism and paranoiadeliver the benediction at his swearing-in. It should also be noted that this somewhat attenuated “payback mentality likely also affected other, non-black minorities (Cuban-Americans, for example, significantly switched their vote from Republican to Democrat for the first time in histor).

9. Finally, there is the problemor, rather, non-problemof Obamas birth certificate. Magically (or through a combination of dirty tricks and PC MC gullibility fueled by white guilt and fear of seeming racist), Obama completely and seemingly effortlessly avoided this thorny difficultythough it may rear its inconvenient head any time in the future and render his Presidency invalid by a sheer technicality.


There is no reason to think that just because this list is organized in descending order of importance, #9 is a mild factor: it is only that #1, and the other numbers listed above #9 are so much stronger, they must be ranked higher.

What becomes clear from the list is that the nine factors can be divided into two categories: deserved, and undeserved. I.e., either the factor reveals a quality of Obama that earns him his victory, or the factor reveals an accidental or even perverse phenomenon that enabled him to win without any deserved merit.

Here is the list again, with the appropriate designation of categories D for deserved, U for undeserved:

1. White guilt -- U
2. Bush -- U
3. McCain -- U
4. PC MC Media -- U
5. Political savvy -- D

6. Charisma -- D
7. Retro-Hippies -- D
8. Black Racism -- U
9. Birth Certificate -- U

Note: I rate #6 as deserved, insofar as he deftly struck a chord with this large sociocultural mood that helped him win and insofar as that sociocultural mood is not blatantly evil, however much we may find fault with it; #7 as undeserved, since that sociocultural mood is evil; and #8 as undeserved, since the avoidance of the issue is unethical.

When we weigh the nine factors according to the two categories, we find 6 undeserved and 3 deserved. Furthermore, the top three reasons are undeserved and being uppermost on the list, do weigh more (pace my caveat above) than the deserveds” below them.

Not a good result overall.


awake said...

The MSM's grossly liberal bias?

Erich said...

Well, the MSM's PC MC is massively implicit in my #1 (white guilt) and #2 (Bush(bashing)), as well as in #8 (the Birth Certificate problem). I'll have to think about whether there are good enough reasons to make that factor explicit and distinct as another reason on the list.

Nobody said...

While there is plenty to criticize about BO, let it not be forgotten what brought about this situation in the first place, before blaming the PCMC crowd for his being where he is.

1. Democrat fatigue with the Clintons: Even though I'm not remotely Democrat, had I been one, I'd have been disgusted with the Clintons for taking the party from a majority to a minority party, and losing elections nonstop since 1994: that trend only ended in 2006, long after the Clintons were out of power. Therefore, all Democrats disgusted with the Clintons voted massively for Obama, and the only thing that arrested that trend for a while was the Wright expose. Nonetheless, on the Primary side, Clintons were the main reason that Obama won. Definitely deserved here, since none of the other candidates could galvanize the anti-Clinton votes - not Edwards, not Richardson, not Biden, not Dodd...

2. Conservative dismay at Republicans: Simply blaming Bush is simplistic, to borrow a favorite term of the Dems while describing him. After all, this was the same Bush who won in 2002 and 2004, and he was no more eloquent then than he is now. To refer to McCain's problems as arising out of a lack of charisma, or his financial situation (which is a little less off the mark) is also missing the point.

The problem the Republicans had was credibility. Sure, one could point to K-Street and jailed Congressmen, as well as bad management at Katrina, but the real sore point was the lack of credibility.

In the 80s, the GOP had the White House but not the Congress, in the 90s, the GOP had the Congress but not the White House, and in the 00s, they had both. Therefore, passing most of the Conservative agenda ought to have been a slam dunk, right? But how did it turn out? We've lost count of the number of times Senate Republicans, from McCain to Specter to Voinovich to any number of senators walked off the reservation, and the result was the GOP falling short of key votes. Hell, in 2004, the GOP had more seats in Congress than in 1994, and they still could not get much through the senate. And on a number of occasions, the president himself betrayed Conservative principles while negotiating with Democrats, be it on the steel tariffs, unionization of Airport Security, et al, while McCain and rogue Senate Republicans were busy undermining GOP policies like ANWR drilling, gang of 14, aggressive interrogative techiniques*, and so on.

So, if you are a Conservative, as most people in the AIM are, why would you vote for the GOP? It got the biggest majority it could have hoped for in 2004, and they still could not get major issues passed, be it social security reform, ANWR drilling, confirmation of John Bolton as UN ambassador, et al. When Conservative Republicans like Pat Toomey did run in primaries against Specter, they were let down by both Bush & Santorum. Given that reality, why should/would Conservatives bother pulling the lever for the GOP? Many, due to these reasons, didn't, and the end result was a turnout for Obama.

McCain lost because enough Conservatives decided that if he's going to reach out to Liberals, they might as well either sit it out, or (probably rare) do the reaching out themselves. McCain did not lose because of charisma, or a reluctance to take on his opponents: in the GOP primary, he was as aggressive as he could be against Romney, and was displaying charisma the way Sharon Stone displays her you know what, but in the general elections, he didn't show half that attitude against Obama. It's well known that he would not have been a 'crusader' for Conservative causes, and nor would he have been any better than Bush in the jihad against Islam.

* I recognize that a lot of Conservatives are going to point to Obama's actions now and say, "This is what you get for not supporting McCain". But McCain was on the same side as Obama on this one - he too was opposed to Gitmo, and he too supported closing it down and trying them in US courts. Besides, with the Supreme Court having shot that down, and with the Bush administration having not objected vigorously enough, it would be a bit much to expect any Dem administration to keep that running. Just 1 example of why, despite the demoralizing initial policies of Obama, we'd not have been better off by voting McCain.

Nobody said...

Not to forget - McCain was the main reason a lot of GOP initiatives did not pass Congress, in spite of the GOP having a majority in both. If McCain did not support the GOP, he could hardly have expected the GOP to support him.

The main reason he won was the number of Dems who crossed over in IA, NH and SC to support him. I loved Rush's Operation Chaos, which took the Dem primary all the way to the last states. Hopefully, this will teach Leftists to think 50 times before trying to spike future GOP primaries.

And thanks, Erich, for p'ing me off against McCain yet again. Yeah, I know that wasn't what you intended, but I can't wait for that traitor to be removed from office.

Erich said...


Nice thoughtful reply with a wealth of detail. I will candidly admit I am not that knowledgeable of political issues outside the realm of the problem of Islam (POI). Some would fault me for this, and I can understand that, but I see the POI as not only the #1 problem, but sufficiently removed from whatever is #2 (arguably the economy), let alone problems further down the list, as to make its exigency an unusual priority. One way this translates, for me, is that all those issues you mention about which Conservatives have been remiss -- "steel tariffs, unionization of Airport Security, et al, while McCain and rogue Senate Republicans were busy undermining GOP policies like ANWR drilling, gang of 14..." -- would not matter to me if the Conservatives involved were adequately strong on Islam.

To put it more vividly: If a politician came along and was wrong about every other position I hold dear, but was right -- or at least sufficiently right -- about the POI, I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat.

Erich said...

P.S.: The other factor you bring up -- Clinton fatigue -- at first glance would seem to be a sufficiently important one to add to my list. I was more thinking of the campaign against McCain and subsequent victory. During the competition to win the Democratic nomination, if #1 and #7 of my list had not been present in Hillary's competition, and if somehow Hillary's competition still had the other strengths of my list, I think Hillary would have won the nomination easily.

Particularly, it would have been interesting to see Hillary and that hypothetical competition compete over #6 (again, assuming the hypothetical competition was strong on #6, though Obama's strength in this gains crucial gravitas and momentum through #1) -- since Hillary in her personal and political history personifies precisely the arc of the radical ideals of the 60s becoming Yuppified but simultaneously trying to find a way to be true to those same ideals that seem to have been "sold out" by that Yuppification -- some say in her case through a kind of "Stealth Radicalism" appearing to be moderate.

Nobody said...

Erich: To put it more vividly: If a politician came along and was wrong about every other position I hold dear, but was right -- or at least sufficiently right -- about the POI, I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat.

Oh, I agree with you 100% on this, to the extent that I'm even willing to support Liberal candidates who have this one right. And no, I don't see it as a fault that you don't follow other issues - neither do I, UNLESS THEY ARE ISLAM RELATED, like drilling for oil in the US. But my point above was that even on the POI, McCain was the problem. To list a few:

1. Support of the surge - as we've all seen, that's the wrong policy to push in Iraq. Here, Obama happens to be right for the wrong reasons.

2. Opposition to Gitmo & 'torture' - you be the judge. Remember the GOP debate, where Brit Hume asked whether a presidential candidate would authorize aggressive interrogative techniques to ply off info about an impeding attack potentially threatening millions? Even in that scenario, McCain refused to support that option.

3. John Bolton - McCain was among those who was opposed to the Bolton nomination, although the leading resistance to it was Voinovich.

4. Unionization of airline security - this was in response to a Bush administration initiative to privatize that operation, given how badly it was run. McCain, among others, sunk that deal.

5. Carping about Rumsfeld - McCain had this habit of trying to micromanage the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

6. Active support to Kosovo independence

7. Pathological opposition to ANWR drilling, which even his own VP supported and supports.

8. I admire the Islam

Bush had his own other problems, such as

1. Dubai Ports Deal

2. In bed with Saudis

3. Promotion of a Palestinian state

4. Friendship with Pakistan, despite 9/11

5. Pandering towards Muslims at home

In short, both McCain and Bush were so much in bed with Muslims, that it's hard to argue that they'd have been preferrable to Obama.

Erich said...

Nobody, I agree with your list of McCain and Bush faults re: Islam. However, just because someone is bad doesn't mean someone else can't be worse. There is little to warrant that Obama will not be worse. McCain and Bush are PC MC; Obama, despite his clever ability to appear Centrist, is Leftist. Indeed, if one judges him by his years of associations, friendships and influences -- one could argue he's a radical Leftist. That is a whole other kettle of fish than PC MC.

awake said...

"I'll have to think about whether there are good enough reasons to make that factor explicit and distinct as another reason on the list."

Your kidding, right?

Erich said...

I guess you missed the "massively implicit". It was like the forest for the trees, but I think you're right, even though you seem incapable of mustering an argument in order to persuade.

awake said...

An argument? I am surprised that you need an argument for this colossus in the living room:

1) The MSM burying Obama's tie to Reverend Wright until after Super Tuesday.

2) The NBC/MSNBC media tankness that was so prevalent it warranted sarcastic satire from their own network on SNL, followed by forced re-appearances by a departed cast member, Tina Fey, to play Palin all through the elections.

3) The NYT's consistent liberal bias, culminating in endorsing McCain as the Republican choice only to run a front page smear sex scandal article the morning after he won the Republican primary.

4) Keith Olbermann

5) Chris "thrill up my pants" Matthews

6) CNN, and in this case, specifically Campbell Brown questioning Palin's experience, intelligence, duty as a mother, as reasons to not support the ticket, coupled with the "trig Palin is really Sarah's daughter's baby derangement, and all the bashing by prominent liberal women "journalists" like Maureen Dowd.

7) Doing a thorough investigation on Bill Ayers right after Obama won the election.

8) Matt Damon and the rest of Hollywood

9) Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah al.

10) Tony Rezko? Who is Tony Rezko?

11) Acorn? Annenberg? Never heard of them.

12) Every African American commenter.

13) The continuous protection and omission of all of Joe "gaffe master" Biden's lies, double speak, and holding both sides of every position.

14) PBS and "neutral" VP debate moderator Gwen Ifill even after it was discovered that she had a book about Obama in the works set for inauguration day? you really need more?

The MSM's grossly liberal bias is the MAIN reason that offset any opposition. The media has historically always been bias to the left, but this was ridiculous. the way, I reiterated my argument on the JW Obama thread and am awaiting your reply.

Nobody said...


The MSM Liberal bias is nothing new - has been there from the 80s, if not earlier. In 2004 as well, it was pretty bad, but it didn't stop Bush from narrowly winning, and Republicans from consolidating their majorities.

Reason? Massive Conservative turnout. There was the feeling among Conservatives that the Liberals, supported by the MSM, was out to destory the country and that Bush would stand in the way. That got debunked in 2005 and beyond, and when McCain kept undermining the Conservatives, he also lost Conservative support.

One could argue that given the economy, any GOP candidate would have had it bad, but there would still have been the intensity behind a Conservative candidate, say Romney, which would have seen him through. But after being betrayed by McCain on so many occasions, one can't fault Conservatives for not turning out for him, even if the alternative was Obama.

Whether the MSM is there or not, what this election proved is that you can't keep betraying Conservatives, and then banking on their support. A candidate with more cred would have held his own against Obama and made the race closer, and maybe even gained the GOP some congressional seats.

awake said...


Romney never had a chance. The MSM allowed Huckabee and McCain to lie openly about his religion and his policies. The MSM set up lame duck McCain. I know about media bias but you cannot argue that it was beyond belief this go around..

Anyway, Erich added it under the PC MC qualifier. I provided my last comment because he always accuses me of not presenting examples to support an argument.

awake said...


It did seem like a perfect storm with bush's second term record and the perfect timing of the economy crisis.

I also agree about McCain not rallying the base because he isn't a conservative.

A positive sign happened yesterday, when every Republican voted against that pork barrel spending bill.

Let's see what the Senate GOP does.

Nobody said...

Erich: Nobody, I agree with your list of McCain and Bush faults re: Islam. However, just because someone is bad doesn't mean someone else can't be worse. There is little to warrant that Obama will not be worse.

My point was that if you are going to get Liberal policies anyway, irrespective of who is in the White House, then either vote for the genuine, as opposed to the fake Liberal, or just sit it out. Pulling the lever for a bad candidate simply because the opponent is worse has never been a winning strategy, let alone argument. Same thing if you substitute 'Liberal' for 'Islam' - McCain isn't any more anti-Islamic than Bush, and we saw that in action in Israel and Kosovo.


In fact, in the new Congress, I saw the other day (Hotair?) that McCain was poised to be Obama's major GOP ally. Obviously, he's learnt nothing.

Also, greater MSM bias would normally anger and energize the Conservatives, like in 2004, but that didn't happen. Also, the MSM wasn't so much Romney's undoing, as much as the Libs who spiked the primaries primarily in NH, as well as that 'religious' retard Huckabee, who enjoyed the curious ability to demagog Romney, as well as split his vote to benefit McCain.

I know that religious conservatives form the base and provide most of the activists and activism on the GOP side, but as 2006 and 2008 demonstrated, a pristine pro-Life stance alone is not going to win the GOP elections, particularly if the less intrusive government and strong defense (read: anti-Islam) wings are ignored. Karl Rover thought that pro-Life alone could carry the party, and he ended up being spectacularly wrong.

You and Erich may not agree, but one positive I do take away from Obama is that he seems to have ended the Clinton dynasty, as well as McCain's further progression. For that alone, I thank him.

Nobody said...


I saw it on Atlas Shrugs, not on HotAir. My apologies to Pamela.

McCain is President Hussein's #1 Senate ally

awake said...


you offered good points and I can almost agree, in hindsight, that Obama winning might be better in the long run than McCain further destroying concservative values.

I just hope we live and enough actually have a country yet to see the tide turn again.

Only ten days in and Obama is scaring the living crap out of me with every single thing he has done to date.

Erich said...


"Pulling the lever for a bad candidate simply because the opponent is worse has never been a winning strategy, let alone argument."

Depends on how worse the worse is.