The Truth Tracker

“Tracking The Truth, Because the Mainstream Media Won’t”

Smerconish, Should Just Register Democrat!

with 11 comments

It was brought to my attention that I carelessly used material and missed acknowledging the source of the story.  I want to make sure this is not the way I do things and I apologize for my carelessness and will do a better job in the future.

The original article the GrassrootsPA, linked to came from FinkelBlog.  I encourage all my readers to visit his blog, very good content.

Via(GrassrootsPA)

Smerconish: ‘We Need To Dilute Influence Of Conservatives In Primaries’

Yo Smerc: who’s “we”?  You voted for Barack Obama . . .

But let’s leave Michael Smerconish’s presidential preferences aside and focus on the substance of his remarks.  On this evening’s Hardball, Smerconish claimed that Republicans  need to “dilute the influence of the conservatives in the Republican presidential nominating process, because we are nominating people who can’t get elected.”

Smerconish was responding to a clip of Rush Limbaugh calling on RNC Chairman Michael Steele to do just the opposite, and do something “about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates.”

If you watch the video clip, you’ll see that Pat Buchanan was dying to jump in, but Chris Matthews had to end the segment.  So let me say what I’m guessing was on Pat’s mind:

Did you pay any attention to the election, Mike? Are you aware that we nominated the most moderate candidate in the Republican field?  Ever heard of John McCain?  You know, the man who:

  • Opposed the Bush tax cuts when they were proposed.
  • Is the infamous co-author of the assault on the First Amendment known as McCain-Feingold
  • Is Ted Kennedy’s best open-border friend.
  • Opposed to drilling in ANWR.

We nominated McCain and got drilled by  Obama. If McCain isn’t liberal enough for you, Mike, who’s your dream Republican candidate: Dennis Kucinich?

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie
Advertisements

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m happy to have you link to my items at FinkelBlog. However, reprinting the entire article and not even acknowledging FinkelBlog as the source is wrong. In the future, please reprint no more than excerpt, and provide a link to FinkelBlog.

    Yours truly,

    Mark Finkelstein
    FinkelBlog

    finkelblog

    March 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM

    • Mark I apologize and was doing more than one thing at a time, and honestly thought I gave you credit along with GrassrootsPA. I’ll amend my post and I truly apologize and meant NO disrespect. Thanks very much for informing me of my careless mistake..

      God Bless,
      TTT

      truthtracker

      March 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM

  2. “Did you pay any attention to the election, Mike? Are you aware that we nominated the most moderate candidate in the Republican field?”

    Two words: SARAH PALIN

    That’s where you lost all the moderate Republicans, not because John McCain was “too conservative”, and that’s what Smerconish is referring to. A wide swath of Republicans nominated John McCain to be the nominee, and they would have voted for him. A small group of “strategists” convinced McCain he needed Palin on the ticket to win, and she satisfied the ultraconservatives and no one else.

    Dan H

    March 5, 2009 at 5:14 PM

    • Dan-

      Thanks for stopping by and giving your thoughts on this story. I’m sorry but if you are trying to blame Sarah Palin for the Democrats getting into office, you seem to not have watched the election after she was chosen as VP.

      Why is it that everyone makes this election out like it was a landslide? Some 59 Million Americans voted AGAINST President Barack Hussein Obama.

      The root of the problem is OPEN Elections. Democrats and Moderates were the main folks who voted McCain into the Republican Nomination, so I don’t see where Smerconish is saying McCain was “too conservative”, and if that is what he was saying than he was sadly mistaken..

      God Bless,
      TTT

      truthtracker

      March 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM

  3. Actually I watched the election pretty closely. Sarah Palin is not to blame for Democrats winning the election, you can thank Pres. Bush for that. But she certainly didn’t help matters. Adding Sarah Palin to the ticket caused McCain’s numbers to spike with a groundswell of support, even surpassing Obama for a time… followed by a steady drop-off as we learned more about her and she went increasingly rogue with her own message and divisive tactics. Everyone except the ultraconservatives felt increasingly uncomfortable with her, and eventually uncomfortable with how McCain had bungled such an important decision as his VP pick. The point Smerconish is making is that the “too conservative” contingent hijacked McCain’s campaign, to its own detriment. If he had chosen someone like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, he would have had a much stronger ticket, but ultraconservatives deemed them too liberal, and went with a wildcard from Alaska instead.

    Your point that 59M Americans voted against Obama is meaningless because we don’t elect presidents based on popular vote. He won 365/538 electoral votes, that’s a 67% victory. Maybe not a landslide, but certainly not “close” by any means.

    Funny how conservatives like Rush Limbaugh thought open primaries were great when it meant crossing party lines to support Hillary (because she was the opponent they’d been preparing to fight for years). Personally I think primaries should be open, because closed primaries just cater to the flawed two-party system. Besides, it’s kind of pointless because if you’re really determined you can just switch party affiliation and then switch back after the election.

    Dan

    March 8, 2009 at 4:16 AM

    • Well Dan if you would gladly post the DROP of in numbers after Gov. Palin entered the race I’ll gladly approve the post ASAP, for everyone to see.

      Dan if my point (in YOUR opinion is meaningless) that can I ask why the MSM and THE MESSIAH HIMSELF are claiming that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE voted for change? If (in YOUR OPINION) our popular vote is meaning less, than please explain to me why we even have a popular vote? And also please educate me on why the popular vote is (MEANINGLESS NOW) but was ALWAYS a HUGE issue during the 2000 & 2004 elections?

      And I was never for Open Elections even if it meant that the conservatives were voting for Hillary in order to pro-long the Dem. primary. While I found it funny, since McCain was NOT voted by the Majority of REPUBLICANS, but by Independents and more moderate democrats.

      God Bless,
      TTT

      truthtracker

      March 9, 2009 at 7:40 AM

  4. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html#US_6

    That’s a link to the Gallup poll tracker, which clearly shows that McCain’s popularity peaked in early September just as he picked Sarah Palin. And like I said, this immediately caused his popularity to spike, because at first she looked like a shrewd, “Maverick”, strong running mate. It was only during her botched roll-out to the media, and subsequent gaffes and blunders, that people started to turn away, and Obama started to rise again, right up until the election. At that same link, you can see the CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, NYTimes, WSJ, and WaPo polls all show a similar pattern of a spike in early September, and a steady drop off, just like I said.

    The fact that the media and other people report the popular vote is just as meaningless as you citing it. According to our constitution and electoral procedures, the nationwide popular vote is meaningless, a statistic that people generate by taking individual state votes (which are meaningful) and adding them all up into a “simple” number that the dumb public can understand. Locally, popular votes count, because they almost always determine how the electoral college assigns votes, but nationwide they are meaningless, no matter what anyone says or how many ways people obsess over it. People talked about it a lot in 2000 and 2004, but it was just as meaningless then, and for dozens of (presidential) elections before that.

    Dan H

    March 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM

    • Thanks for that link Dan, and I’m sorry but I must be part of the “dumb public” (as you so nicely put it). B/C I don’t see anywhere in that poll that shows Sarah Palin was the reason for the drop? I mean yeah I listened to the same interviews and crap you did, and all I could do was laugh at the questions being asked of Gov. Palin. Could you tell me if ANY OF THE QUESTIONS asked of her, were asked of Joe Biden or Barack Obama? I mean all they did was try to focus on making her look ridiculous all at the same time throwing softballs to the Messiah.

      I mean the MSM and Liberals were so caught off guard by the VP pick they had to do anything they could to make her the villain. Doesn’t it make anyone curious as to why we heard so much about her, but so LITTLE of BIDEN AND HIS GAFFE’S? If they thought she was no big deal, then why push so hard that they sent 30 plus reporters to Alaska to dig up any dirt they can.

      Well you can have your opinion on what the popular vote is, and while a majority of the American public is either misinformed or uninformed. But to call them DUMB, just isn’t cool.

      Thanks for the debate and conversation.

      God Bless,
      TTT

      truthtracker

      March 9, 2009 at 11:59 PM

  5. HAHAHAHAHA. You asked me to post, and I quote, “the DROP of in numbers after Gov. Palin entered the race” and when I did EXACTLY that, you changed your argument to, “I don’t see how this drop was due to Sarah Palin.” You know, I’d be willing to say the media treated Palin unfairly, and that they were maybe a little childish because she was kept off-limits by the McCain campaign. But if you’re not going to debate fairly, I’m not sure why I should continue to participate. You obviously have your opinion and you’re going to keep it, no matter what facts are presented.

    I do not have an “opinion” on the (national) popular vote. It is what it is, and until there’s a change in our election process, it is meaningless. Only the electoral votes matter. This is a fact, not an opinion.

    Dan

    March 10, 2009 at 9:25 AM

    • Dan I’ll concede, one weakness of mine is debating others at times. Are you going to sit there and tell me that Gov. Palin was the MAIN and ONLY FACTOR to affect the numbers? I mean if you plan on telling me that she is the reason for ALL the drop in numbers, and that the fact that republicans that had been not doing the job they were put into office to do in the first place (stop the spending and make government smaller), and millions of Americans willing to put our country at risk just so they can claim they were part of history had nothing to do with this past election is interesting. I mean Dan I’ll give you that Gov. was a factor of why the numbers went down but will you then acknowledge that the coverage given to her was plenty to do with that?

      You are right they were with holding Gov. Palin, which I don’t think was the smartest of ideas, but can you blame them for the crap interviews and stories being cooked up and pasted on our TV’s, computers, radios, and newspapers? Dan I appreciate you seeing and being willing to admit the treatment was not of any sort we have seen previously. I mean former President George W. Bush, who was painted as the downfall of America, was treated better then Gov.Palin his entire 8 yrs in office, compared to the few months she was in national spotlight.

      Well Dan we’ll just agree to disagree on the Popular Vote argument. I see your point that it appears meaningless, but it still gives the American Public a picture of who voted for who. And while President Obama may have won with a bigger margin in Electoral Vote, it doesn’t wipe out the fact that all but half the American Voters voted against him.

      God Bless,
      TTT

      truthtracker

      March 11, 2009 at 7:50 AM

  6. Sorry it took so long to respond. Been busy this week.

    Anyway, of course I can’t say that Sarah Palin was the main and/or only factor in McCain’s numbers. Nobody really knows that, and there are plenty of reporters and articles that debate that endlessly. Personally, I believe that this election was pretty much unwinnable for Republicans thanks to Pres. Bush’s really low approval ratings (whether they were deserved or not) and the feeling that R’s had lost their way in governing the country. But I don’t think Sarah Palin helped, because she rallied the ultraconservatives at the expense of alienating moderate R’s and D’s who really liked John McCain. And to bring this full circle, I think that’s what Smerconish’s point is: that a broad moderate base is what the Republican party should look for.

    I don’t think Sarah Palin was a good candidate, period. Was she treated hostile by the media, yeah, was her rollout bungled, yeah. So maybe she could have come off looking slightly better if not for that. But I watched her closely, her RNC speech, her interviews with friendly and hostile journalists, her responses on the trail, her stump speech, and there are few redeeming qualities that I could find. Maybe she has more in her, and with some more practice and time she can emerge stronger on the national stage. But in 2008 she was not adequately prepared to be a VP candidate, and that’s why moderates were driven away by her.

    Dan

    March 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: