I’m looking for something profound to say…
and coming up with blanks. 
Bummer.
WORLD posted an article talking about how conservatives are in the minority. Nonsense. There are a lot of conservatives who won’t vote for people who pander to the “middle.” As we saw in 2004, when conservatives govern like conservatives and campaign like conservatives, good things happen. When we nominate John McCain, an honorable man, no doubt, but by no means a “staunch conservative,” we lose to socialism.
The larger point, of the election, however, is that the American people need to be reminded that being American is not about being comfortable. Being American is about making sacrifice so that others might be comfortable. You know… responsibility. Won’t hear that as a buzzword in any campaign anytime soon.
And so now we move on.
How about Jindal/Palin next time around?
matthew
November 14, 2008 at 8:41 am
Jindal can’t be President because he was not born in the U.S., unfortunately… I would say Huckabee/Palin or Thompson/Palin
washedandforgiven
November 14, 2008 at 8:04 pm
How about Palin/ Huckabee?
I think Sarah Palin would make a great President!!!
(that is, if the country survives Obama….but we survived Clinton, so there’s still hope)
BaptistBlonde
November 15, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I almost find it amusing that republicans hate Bill Clinton, when he was the only president in modern times to have balanced the budget. (I mean… granted he really needed to get his morals and ethics straight yes, but still a good president nonetheless)
Oh, and I was wondering, who actually believes/ed that anyone besides McCain had even a shot at winning. I think the only reason why McCain was able to avoid a 10% popular vote blow out was due to the fact that people just don’t like the republican party, and he was the most outsider, republican in the race. Just curious
and last comment on this, seriously… Palin!?!??! she scares me. I mean…. seriously, I know many conservatives that hated her because she was bad, and every liberal and independent that I know hated her. I mean… to be honest, I don’t think she can help do anything but mobilize the base but lose the center.
So… in conclusion can people please answer these three questions (maybe more since there are multiple parts):
1. What’s so bad about Bill Clinton?
2. Who do you think should have won the Republican nomination, and do you think they could have won the general election, and why? (you chose them and why they could win the general election)
3. Why do you think Palin is so good when many polls show that almost half of the people think she is… well to put it bluntly incompetent, not to mention, many say that she is only good with the base?
ts31
November 22, 2008 at 8:16 pm
1. Uhh, what’s Bill Clinton got to do with anything? But there’s a couple answers for that. One, he was handed Bin Laden on a silver platter and was too busy playing golf to give the order to go in. Two, he weakened the military. He nominated at least one terribly liberal, legislatefromthebench justice to the Supreme Court. Etc, etc, etc.
2. I honestly think either Huckabee or Romney could have countered Obama. Politics these days has nothing to do with substance and everything to do with style. While both of them have more substance than Obama by a long ways, they also both have a lot of style.
3. If almost half the people in the U.S. say that Palin is incompetent, that actually is less than the number of people who say that Obama isn’t qualified to be President, if we are to believe the polls. And, honestly, after having McCain be nominated so we could “attract the center” I’m not really concerned with that. Conservatives win when they run on conservative values. They have in the past. And I think they can again. So that’s why Palin’s so good. She energizes people who actually vote for Republicans.
washedandforgiven
November 22, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I’m not trying to spark an argument here, I just really want to see stuff from the other side, and I honestly don’t understand:
1. The Bill Clinton things came from the person above my first post. In a sense, aren’t “activist judges” primarily just judges that disagree with what you believe? (btw, are you talking about Ginsburg?)
2. If politics had nothing to do with substance, why were Republicans as a whole crushed? (granted it wasn’t the total route I hoped for [62-38], but 58-40 with 2 undecided Senate Seats is still encouraging) It was the substance not their personalities that were running since there so many losses. (I mean, they can’t all be blamed on style)
3. uh….. i said people who said she was incompetent, I didn’t include the numbers who didn’t think she was qualified, (ranges in the sixties I believe) people who think Obama is qualified right now is within the 60s actually… (and the bad part about getting most of your polls from t.v. is that you have no way of getting them back =/) I know that you’ll agree when I say it wasn’t exactly the greatest year of all years for republicans, after losing decisively across the board, but with so much anger towards the republicans as a whole, do you think anyone entrenched in the republican party really could have done as well as McCain did? (to be honest, Palin was a horrible choice, he lost the center by choosing her)
ts31
November 23, 2008 at 12:38 am
I’ll not address the first two… to be really honest, I shouldn’t even address the third. But I have seen poll numbers that indicate that some 50 to 60% of Americans think Obama not qualified to be President. And I like how your number changed from almost half to “ranges in the sixties.” That’s quite a difference.
washedandforgiven
November 24, 2008 at 10:18 am
incompetent and unqualified are two entirely different things….. Although… I’ll admit, polls are notorious for saying different things
As they say, 75% of statistics can be made to say what you want 50% of the time. (at least, that was in a Comcast cable commercial, and they’re never wrong)
Ok… I’m still really confused why people attack “activist judges” (even though Brown v. Board was an act of “judicial activism”) and I really don’t understand how people could have thought that a deeply entrenched republican would have won, with the republican party so… well, let’s put it this way, people didn’t exactly like them.
ts31
November 24, 2008 at 8:48 pm
To answer your questions, ts31…
1. Bill Clinton was a draft dodger. I still can’t beleive they put him in. I mean, really, who puts in a President that isn’t even willing to serve his country?
2. Personally, I think Mike Huckabee should have won the Republican nomination.
3. As to why ‘Palin is so good’, I don’t think that pinning the title ‘good’ on anyone should happen. The Bible says that there’s ‘none good’, therefore I will dismiss the use of that word in particular, however, I think that Palin is more qualified than Obama to lead America. Palin, I believe, is a Godly Christian lady who is willing to stand for what she believes, and furthermore, what she believes, as far as I know, concerning the key political issues is correct,
BaptistBlonde
November 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm
All I’ll say about Palin is that I find it fascinating that the people who say she ruined the McCain campaign are the people who wouldn’t have voted for McCain anyways. Conservatives don’t say that.
Also, don’t use poll numbers to support your claims and then, when they don’t support your theory, claim that poll numbers are irrelevant and inaccurate. Furthermore, incompetent and unqualified mean the same thing, one is just slightly more hyperbolic than the other.
washedandforgiven
November 25, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Hyperbolic? I suppose so, but I think maybe a more accurate description is that one is more….insulting than the other.
I mean, unqualified means that at least you have a chance to become qualified, whereas incompetent gives the impression of not being smart enough to EVER be qualified.
Then again…that’s just my take on the two words.
So, pretty much, I’m disagreeing and saying that there is a difference between ‘unqualified’ and ‘incompetent’.
BaptistBlonde
November 26, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I said that poll numbers can be made to say what you want, but they’re not unreliable. (like.. they can be biased, but not false) And, I can’t find that stupid poll dang it =( [At least he has a high approval rating, very very very high.]
I’m under the impression that you believe you only need the republican base to win the presidency….
Also, those words are different, like the person above me said. Those were two different questions that had different responses. So no, they are not the same, they are very different. and even if it were hyperbolic, it wouldn’t be slightly, it would be extremely hyperbolic.
ts31
November 26, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Incompetent according to Random House 2006 and Dictionary.com: not competent; lacking qualification or ability.
Unqualified according to the same: not qualified; not fit; lacking requisite qualifications.
Those don’t look entirely different to me. “Lacking qualification” is even part of the definition for incompetent.
washedandforgiven
November 27, 2008 at 10:42 am
Incompetent: unskilled, lacking normally expected degree of ability.
Unqualified: not qualified, ineligible, unfit for a position or task.
There’s a difference.
BaptistBlonde
November 27, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I’m not going to waste my time any more. I think I’ve sufficiently made my point.
washedandforgiven
November 27, 2008 at 10:16 pm
*looks for point*
Bummer, I must have missed it.
BaptistBlonde
November 27, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Just a note to let you know the Cyber Hymnal (linked from your blog), has a new URL: http://www.hymntime.com/tch. Please spread the word!
God bless…
Dick
The Cyber Hymnal
February 7, 2009 at 10:59 am