Governors assail failed campaign

[DogPoundPup]

Source: The Boston Globe

MIAMI - With Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska in their midst, the nation's leading Republican governors used their annual conference to unleash some of their most furious criticism yet about the failed campaign she waged alongside presidential nominee John McCain.

"The main economic argument McCain made during this campaign was earmarks," Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana told the Republican Governors Association. "We've got real ideas. We can't just be the party of 'no,' " he continued in a later interview.

Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota passed over when McCain selected Palin as his running mate, compared the candidate's campaign style unfavorably to President Reagan's. "People mostly want to follow positive leaders; they don't want to follow cranks," he said.

Palin's colleagues rarely mentioned her by name, as the defeated vice presidential nominee swept through the conference, making a triumphal jaunt richer in nostalgia for her brief campaign than in prescriptions for a Republican rebound.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/14/governors_assail_failed_campaign/

[LynnTheDem]

1. Try "failed platform".

Then at least they'd be assailing reality.

[Journeyman]

2. If the Republicans had wanted to win, they would have nominated someone else. . .

I said it in August and I'll repeat it today: McCain and Palin were chosen in part so the Republicans could rid themselves of both neocons and fundamentalists, or at least mute their influence and remove them from the forefront of the Party.

The Republican powers wanted McCain defeated and Palin humiliated. Similar purges have been done before: in '64 when the Republicans rid themselves of the Goldwater wing of conservatism, and in '72, when the Democrats did the same with the liberal, anti-war wing personified by McGovern.

Now that the election is over, and McCain has lost it, big time, and Palin stands humiliated beyond any measure we could imagine before the Convention, I doubt that either a neocon or a fundamentalist will be on the Republican ticket in 2012. That, I believe, was what the monied interests were angling for with this odd couple pairing.

It's been my firm belief since McCain surged to the forefront, the Republicans didn't want to win this election because losing was their only hope to remain viable in the years to come.

Face it, their only hope was for McCain to lose. George W. has left the nation in such a shambles, it's difficult to imagine how anyone can set things aright. Another four years of McSame would have doomed the Republicans -- and they knew it. Their best hope was for a Democrat to inherit W's disasters. Then, whichever way it goes -- if the Democrat can fix the problems, or if they prove uncorrectable in one or two terms -- the Republicans may be in a position to stage a comeback. It may take more than two or even four election cycles, but they'll have the opportunity. However, if a Republican had won, and all the disasters BushCo created ended up piled unequivocally on their doorstep, it would have doomed the Republicans' to an even greater wilderness than they face today.

All the Republican governors are doing now is putting the finishing touches to a disaster the Party planned for months ago. I believe McCain knew this going in. Only Palin doesn't realize how she was used.

[harmonicon]

3. I almost hope that you're right about this

I don't think that you are - I just don't think they plan that far ahead, as demonstrated by the last 8 years. However, I would love to see an actual debate based on policy (which is how I think Obama won - when people compared simple things like tax policies) over hyperbole. I don't agree with every Democrat, including Obama, and I probably don't agree with ANY Republican, but I could live under a Republican administration if I actually thought they were interested in governing over pillaging.