The Smallest Minority

Unfortunately this state, Nevada went from red to blue. Even though there is a very large per capita percentage of gun owners here, the voters did not research BO very well.

I can't wait to move to our home in Idaho! It's still and probably always will be red!

"I can't wait to move to our home in Idaho! It's still and probably always will be red!"-Terry

Speaking of strategy here, there is an ironic and tragic flaw in the McCain campaign that can be traced directly back to Viet Nam.

As in Viet Nam, McCain's campaign never aggressively campaigned in "Blue" states. He didn't attack Obama's base, while Obama's campaign vigorously attacked his.

How similar can this be to the war effort in Viet Nam, where we never mounted an invasion of North Viet Namese soil, allowing the enemy to retreat behind a line that largely existed only in our own imaginations, to strike at us and our South Viet Namese allies at their own convenience?

This is not the first time, and not the only context that I've seen former Viet Nam veterans that have seemingly remained hobbled by the strategy that led to defeat 40 years ago.

If your campaign managaer isn't thoroughly acquainted with von Clausewitz and Alfred Thayer Mahan, you'd better hire a speechwriter who specializes in drafting Concession Speeches.

Mostly Cajun nicely points out the central problem with social safety nets: it's too hard to sort the "jumpers" from the "fallers"

"Speaking of strategy here, there is an ironic and tragic flaw in the McCain campaign that can be traced directly back to Viet Nam."

I wonder how much of the fight that was in a young John McCain was literally beaten and tortured out of him. We'll never know, and it doesn't matter at this point anyway. I still honor him for his service and extreme sacrifice, and I always will (even as I disagree and am disgusted by his stance on many issues, and as much as I am disappointed that he didn't run this campaign well).

That being said, playing defense is a recipe for defeat most of the time. The best D is a good offense. Take the war, game, campaign, whatever to the enemy's home, put them on the defensive, never let them take the initiative. Even if they successfully parry you 10 times in a row, on the 11th you'll succeed. That's just what McCain's campaign was victimized by, a losing strategy from Day 1.

Actually, if you want to point to a central reason why the Republicans lost their shirt last Tuesday, it's the type of campaign they ran.
The entire Republican campaign, across the country, was based around negative attack ads and fear mongering. The ad run in NC regarding Kay Hagen being "godless" demonstrates quite clearly how few ideas the Republican party have left. And how little thought was put into offering real solutions. The convention in St Paul and virtually all of Sarah Palin's speeches were identical in theme...hate and intolerance.

The American people were sick of hearing it. As Krugmann said this week...

"Last night wasn’t just a victory for tolerance; it wasn’t just a mandate for progressive change; it was also, I hope, the end of the monster years.
What I mean by that is that for the past 14 years America’s political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people.
And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was “shrill.”
Four years ago it seemed as if the monsters would dominate American politics for a long time to come. But for now, at least, they’ve been banished to the wilderness."

It's a good thing, too. Maybe we can finally start solving some problems around here.

Wow! Marky got something sorta right!

McCain couldn't do much positive campaigning. After all, it's hard to excite conservatives with a guy who seems to have no qualms giving conservatives and the Constitution the shaft, then the figurative finger when when we call him on it. (Just think of Kevin's McCain bumper sticker idea.)

On the other hand, Marky, once again you miss a key point. There is NOTHING wrong with negative campaign ads WHEN THEY ARE TRUTHFUL!!!

After all, Obama did study, use, and teach others the methods of Saul Alinsky. He willingly worked with Bill Ayers, including launching his political career from his living room. (You just don't do that if you don't know the person!) We know his voting record. We know what his chosen church teaches and that he chose to go there for 20 years! We know that he chose to align himself with a Chicago Socialist party.

Which of these things are factually untrue? They are all TRUE! Therefore, there is nothing, not one thing wrong with telling people about those things!

So what do we know about his religious beliefs? We know he claims to be a Christian. But we can compare his statements of doctrine to what the Bible teaches and discover that he is not really a Christian. (Also see Part 2 and
In other words, we do not know the truth of Obama's religious beliefs. Claims that Obama is a Muslim are mere speculation and should not be used in a campaign. I even cautioned a friend against using such speculation in private conversations. After all, there is plenty of verifiable truth to work with.

Do you see how this works Marky? Even though we have written and verifiable documentation that identifies Obama as going to a Muslim school and having his religion listed as Muslim, there are legitimate reasons to question whether he actually is a Muslim. Therefore, we cannot reach a supportable conclusion about his beliefs.

On the other hand, we have your claim about Sarah Palin confusing Africa with a country. It fails the very first test of a truth claim which Obama's Muslim past passes: verifiability. Both claims fail the second test of a truth claim: corroborating evidence. (In Sarah's case, her demonstrated knowledge during the VP debate, and in Obama's case, his actions and spoken beliefs over the last 20+ years.)

Another test which can also be applied to a truth claim is simple likelihood. Again, in the Africa/country case, it's unlikely that anyone would get that confused, let alone someone with her demonstrated intelligence. And in the case of Obama and Islam, we know that people can, and frequently do change their religious beliefs as they get older. We also know that Muslims claim that once someone is a Muslim, they're always a Muslim, yet there is ample evidence that this just isn't so. But we also know that Islam teaches the concept of lying to outsiders so you can get close enough to destroy them. As a result, the best we can determine about the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is simply indeterminate. If he actually followed the Bible accurately (as in yes, there is a heaven and hell, yes, Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and he is the only way of salvation), then we could say that it would be unlikely that he is a Muslim.

I should note that the third test is merely a "rule of thumb" test, or "sniff test". If a truth claim strongly passes verifiability and corroborating evidence tests, then even the unlikely is probably true.

Do you see how I'm applying the exact same type of rules and reasoning to both your claim that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a country and the idea that Obama is a Muslim? Both claims come up short, even though the Obama/Muslim claim carries more weight. The point here is CONSISTENCY.