Obama didn't just pick which topics motivated Dems, he got us motivated by the topics he picked

He didn't win on any issues at all. Dems were highly motivated by 8 years in the wilderness, they were ready to turn out for anyone, and Obama further boosted black turnout as the 'historic' first black president. He had tha additional benefit of a highly supportive news media.

Meanwhile, McCain depressed GOP turnout, there just wasn't any enthusiasm for him, and there was nothing he could do about it because he'd spent 8 years going out of his way to annoy voters he absolutely had to have to win.

That's what happened, and all the rest is noise.

If the GOP wants to come back, their first challenge is to figure out what motivates their own side's voters. Not what they want those voters to be motivated by, not what they wish they were motivated by, but what actually does, and then see how to present their principles and beliefs in such a way as to appeal to that electorate so they'll turn out again.

So, your definition of leadership is figuring out where the crowd is going, and getting there first.

The tiny little problem with your verbose analysis is that Democrats weren't motivated by cap and trade, or tarp, and only slightly by gitmo. Plus we hate the 'old media' as much as you do. We were even split on issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama didn't just pick which topics motivated Dems, he got us motivated by the topics he picked.

Until you party can find a candidate that will make people care about things they don't already care about, you're gonna stay in the wilderness.

The current GOP heartland is the South, the Dem heartland today is the Northeast and West Coast. The Ohio Valley States are the 'swing' states, with the mountain West as a secondary swing center.

In this last election cycle, the GOP leadership tried to ram three candidates down the South's throat, more or less, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, or John McCain. There was immediate pushback, there were Republicans wearing buttons two years ago that had the name 'Rudy McRomnney' on them with a slash through them. There were lots of signals from the Republican rank and file about their dissatisfaction with those three.

Note that in the primaries, Huckabee won a huge swath of the GOP heartland in the South, because the cultural issues are vital there. The GOP leadership wants to move away from precisely the issues that tend to galvanize the rank and file, even as they infuriate the news media and the liberals. There weren't many people who seriously thought Huckabee could win in the fall, but it was something of a protest vote. Note that most of the Huckabee voters did go on to vote for McCain, reluctantly, in preference to Obama...but not all, and as a result States that should have been GOP 'locks' were lost or turned into razor-thin wins.

Sarah Palin, by the way, helped McCain on E-day. Without her along, he'd have lost by more in the GOP heartlands, because her presence reassured rebellious social and cultural conservatives to considerable degree.

Voter turnout in 2008 was comparable to that of 2004, only up by a slight margin, yet GOP turnout was down by a sharp margin, while Dem turnout was up. Obama got high turnout among black and highly liberal voters, whereas John McCain just could not produce enthusiasm among voters who'd spent 8 years watching him grandstand and appeal to the media for their support.

Note that the infamous 'swing' voters hardly mattered, it was all about turnout. Again.

The GOP spent two years obsessing on this or that group of Dem voters who could be persuaded to cross over if we just dropped the social issues, and it was a waste of time. A predictable one.

The northeastern States where Guiliani, Romney, and McCain were supposed to be competitive went so solidly Democratic that there aren't any GOPers left in the House from that part of the country, and in the process of wasting time chasing a lost cause, the GOP dropped seats in parts of the country where they are competitive.

Guiliani actually said at one point in a radio interview in the primary period that yes, he'd lose States in the South over his social positions, but he would be competitive in the northeast to make up for it. That was his big plan, and it was the underlying rationale in the GOP leadership for the election, and it's a fantasy.

The road back for the GOP is not to become more like Dems, that never works. As Harry Truman said, if you offer the electorate a choice of a Republican or a Republican, they'll chose the Republican every time. It works the same way in reverse, in 2008 the GOP offered John McCain, pro 'cap and trade', 'let's close Gitmo', 'I want the 'old media' to like me', 'let's do TARP', etc. When you look at their stated policy positions, there just wasn't that much space between McCain and Obama in the general election, from the POV of the conservative base they were offered Dem and Dem (slightly) lite, based on what they were claiming.

(Yes, Obama was hiding his real agenda. So what? McCain either didn't understand that or lacked the nerve or skill to use it, so it didn't matter on E-day.)

If the GOP wants to come back, their first challenge is to figure out what motivates their own side's voters. Not what they want those voters to be motivated by, not what they wish they were motivated by, but what actually does, and then see how to present their principles and beliefs in such a way as to appeal to that electorate so they'll turn out again.

Or they can accept a return to the permanent minority status they lived under for 40 years.

One basic truth to recognize is that the social conservatives are not the problem. They're doing OK in elections on referenda even as GOPers lose, from affirmative action in Michigan to marriage in California, they've been racking up surprise wins with significant blue collar and minority support. If the GOP wants to wedge the Dems, they're far more likely to be able to do it on social issues than they are taxes or trade, like it or not.

American history teaches us that our leaders, Doctor, ought be less than extraordinary mortals who reflect our values and in whom we may safely place our trust.

You really think Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, and Reagan were just ordinary schmoes? I think our best leaders have been men of extraordinary intellect.

Is it your contention that one must choose between capable people and honorable ones? Do you really think honor is disproportionately distributed among the unsuccessful?

Dr. Joyner...
You're referring to "serious leaders" and "intellectuals" of a libertarian-conservative movement? You do see the paradoxical humor (yes?) in the notion that a movement comprised primarily of self-motivated and self-governing individuals seeks "serious" "intellectual" leaders?

American history teaches us that our leaders, Doctor, ought be less than extraordinary mortals who reflect our values and in whom we may safely place our trust. Its about values, not power; about core principles, not status. We seek no gods, we urge no "serious" "intellectual" "leaders", we simply want to be left alone. Prate on as you will about "faux populism", just don't spill the fumé blanc if Joe W. is elected to Congress.

A book I just finished has had me thinking a lot about the effective use of language

Nice to see you're trying subjects that are totally new to you and thus expanding your horizons.

Well, I promise it is money well spent. I wonder if we will be seeing Kindle files on bittorrent soon...

There's already plenty of ebooks on bittorrent. Even some Creative Comments stuff that is legal to download.

Now if only it didn't cost money.

Well, I promise it is money well spent. I wonder if we will be seeing Kindle files on bittorrent soon...

Now if only it didn't cost money. We don't all make 6-figure salaries you know.

Oh, fiesty dialog, I like it.

Well, I do have to thank you for stirring the pot and providing a thought provoking counterpoint to bits rather dreary and predictable nastiness, which is inevetibley followed by proclamations of triumph. And what proclamations they are! He "handed me my butt"...

A book I just finished has had me thinking a lot about the effective use of language. "Imperium" by Robert Harris. The story of Cicero's rise to power. One of the best historical novels I have ever read, highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.com/Imperium-Novel-Ancient-Robert-Harris/dp/0743498666/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235788820&sr=8-1

Perhaps I am. Tell you what. Go take the two tests I suggested. If you don't provoke a violent reaction in either case, I will cop to crimes against my gender...

Oh, fiesty dialog, I like it.

The only problem is that this is the internet. I can claim to have performed your test, just like Bithead did your earlier one, and you'd have no real way of knowing if that claim was true or not.

In fact, I'll go ahead and do just that. I performed both tests, in the past 10 minutes if you can believe it, and neither male showed even the slightest hint of violence. Now you have to either follow through with your pledge, or question my honesty. Isn't the internet grand?

your sexist?

Perhaps I am. Tell you what. Go take the two tests I suggested. If you don't provoke a violent reaction in either case, I will cop to crimes against my gender...

If that is the only difference between them, you tell us, Anjin... how else do you suppose the comparison will go, eh?

Ah, I see. Logic FORCED you to direct a racial insult at Obama!

Really bit, your bizarre insistence that Obama and Carter are doppelgängers of some sort is too ridiculous to even really respond to.

I realize that in the odd universe you inhabit, anything Michelle Malkin says is a FACT, but here on Terra firma, we need, you know, a little more to go on...