@ Capo

While we agree on 'who lost the election', we disagree on 'natural selection'.  

The kapitein's postings on TBJ are among the 'better' ones.  They are useful, because they reveal stark differences among different strands of conservatism within Western civilisation.  Such differences better be debated rather than swept under the rug.  And, perhaps the crucial difference concerns the distinction between 'race' and 'culture', i.e. the meaning or understanding of 'judeo-christian' morality and of its survival.  

The Kapitein's postings are also indicative of the growing cultural rift between Europe and America, which in my opinion is only temporarily (not for the first time) and superficially concealed by the election of Obama.  Lovers of freedom, everywhere, better prepare for that reality.  Of course, the issue becomes moot if both sides of the Atlantic end up either going the 'Putin way' or the UN-way (i.e. chaos).  

@K.A.

Will then remain a mystery, since your contunuing posts on TBJ refutes Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest.

I apologize for offending your grammer check, I was in in a bit of a rush this morning. Agnew was great, he simply made the mistake of thinking he could do political fund raising the same way democrats do it and have the press ignore it. Hence,calling out the press was probably not the smartest move possible, though it was fun to watch.

Romney may indeed have won, if Huckabee hadn't done so well in Iowa, up until that point it did seem the Republican establishment including conservatives were reconciling themselves to the Mormon candidate. But Iowa did change the dynamics of the race. And we ended up with everybody's not even 2nd choice but probably 3rd choice.

1) As far as "brother Frans" is concerned the issue was not Palin, nor election analysis of the last US presidential election, etc...The issue was the Kapitein's applying "hilarious" to Palin, thereby revealing his 'capture' by the dominant naive-leftist media coverage. This, coupled with European ignorance of American 'religiosity' and 'exceptionalism', led to the Kapitein's now familiar parroting of endless mainstream media 'talking points'. 

2) The Kapitein would be well advised to read the following recently-published book by the editor and by the chief Washington correspondent of The Economist magazine: "God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is changing the World", by John Micklethwaith and Adrian Wooldridge (Penguin Press, 2009).   As a product of 'Old Europe' himself, brother Frans understands better than most the prejudices under which the Kapitein labors and his inability to mentally grasp the 'marriage' of capitalism and religion in the USA.  By 'disestablishing' religion, rather than destroying it (as happened largely in both Eastern and Western Europe), the Founding Fathers of the American Republic forced it to become enterprising. 

3) If the book is too long (416 pages), the kapitein might content himself with reading the review article in the September/October issue of The American Interest magazine (a journal of quality on Policy, Politics and Culture), by Clifford Orwin, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto (and visiting fellow at Stanfords' Hoover Institution) who, as a Canadian, might be more acceptable to the kapitein.  It might, inshallah, help free him of his dominant media-induced biases.

4) Capodistrias has outclassed himself again. Anybody who can write a sentence like: "The former investment fund megamillion and gov of the people's republic of Mass vs the minister/gov from the ozarks who played a mean Leonard Skinner and can joke around with anyone and never abandon his core conservative social principles", must have been a speech writer for Nixon's former Vice President Agnew.  However, I must remind him that (fiscal conservative and mormon) Romney came very close to winning the Republican nomination last year, and certainly ahead of the baptist Ozark Guy who is now fast becoming a TV celebrity at Fox.  I agree with Capodistrias, though, that it was McCain who lost the election, and not Palin.

5) Finally, one illustration of the Kapitein's imprisonment by the leftist media can be found in his false claim of "catholics voting mostly Democrat".  That is not what the serious research shows.  It would seem that the catholic vote was more or less evenly split.  This is not an important point, of course, but it illustrates that much of the media today operates on the principle of 'a lie frequently repeated becomes the truth', for they are certainly no longer interested in any objective observable and empirically-tested 'truth'.            

Quite frankly, your woeful ignorance and irrational comments make me wonder what gene pool you came from.  If there was ever a case against intelligent design, Capo, it is you.

Ignorance may be bliss, but woe to those who rely on it in a debate.

Look at the the numbers in recent elections for real Catholics - RC ;-) and CINOs, Catholics in Name Only. Tell me when you the light the candle.

And yes, French Canadians did manage to make their way into the gene pool in the heavily populated NE United States. I would explain the mechanism of how ethnic interaction, mixing  occurrs but the concept of 1 plus 1 , frankly appears to be beyond your grasp. Or, at least, I hope so for the fate of Europe's gene pool.

I wasn't aware that Marc Frans is beyond reproach.  Please accept my sincerest apologies for questioning the dear leader and guide of the conservative revolution...

Also, thank you for enlightening me as to the Christian Right.  I was hitherto unaware that French-Canadians have such electoral clout in the United States.  Might I suggest a rethink of your conservative base?  Last I checked, the majority of Hispanics voted for Obama and Biden, and neither the Irish nor Italians are bastions of ethnic support for the Republican Party.

If one were to analyze electoral inclinations according to religion, one would find Catholics mostly voting Democrat, and Protestants tending to vote Republican.  This "tending" is due to the large numbers of nominal mainline Protestants, as opposed to fervent Evangelicals, etc.

@K.A.

Complete nonsense, from Wagner to Gilbert and Sullivan. 

I would expect a site that is the voice of conservatism in Europe to have a more knowledgeable, regular poster/commentator on American conservatism. And questioning Marcfrans' familiarity with American politics is utterly ridiculous, I don't always agree with Marcfrans, but he is extremely well-informed and knowledgeable about American politics.

The Chrsitian Right would have stayed home in large numbers, especially the Catholic contingent, or found some symbolic outlet to vent their frustration.The ethnic groups Irish, Polish, Italians, French-Canadians; assorted converts (total fanatics in a good cause :-) etc., who make up that sub-group are some of the most conservative and stubborn electorate in the country. They fight to the death and they take no prisoners, metaphorically speaking, you get a sense of them when Atheling's fury is unleashed on you heathens and heretics.

Interestingly, Huckabee was a favorite of a large numbers of this group. I'm not talking of the intellectual elite of the the sub-group which is often as full of themselves as the rest of America's self-identified and self-proclaimed elite. Huckabee was probably the only grassroots candidate among the Republicans who could have, and probably would have beaten Obama.

Fiscal conservatives, and 'I can't get over the Clinton' conservatives hated Huckabee with a passion and explains why McCain ended up with the nomination. Their man Romney stacked up miserably against the Huckster as they called him.

The former investment fund megamillion and gov of the people's republic of Mass vs the minister/gov from the ozarks who played a mean Leonard Skinner and can joke around with anyone and never abandon his core conservative social principles.It was really no contest.

Huckabee sent them all into a lather, that's why they tried to rally around Fred Thompson, the Faux populist, real-life Hollywoood actor and long-time Washington insider, as simply a way to undermine the grassroots surge that was going to Huckabee. Anyone but Huckabee became their objective Romney, Rudy,Thompson, even McCain.

Excuse me this is rather long,

I feel a song coming on.

Just remember this Kapitein:

Things are seldom what they seem,

Skim milk masquerades as cream;

Highlows pass as patent leathers;

Jackdaws strut in peacock's feathers.

M. Frans,

Again, like a trout out of the water...

I am at loss as to where you derive your US political coverage.  Clearly you did not watch any of the debates or see any of the polling statistics that both campaigns relied upon.  McCain's staff made a strategic error by not going on the offensive when Clinton and Obama were in their dogfight.  Admittedly, McCain's war chest wasn't as large as his opponents'.  But by avoiding battle until the Democrats regrouped and by hastily bringing on a vice presidential candidate who clearly was not up to the task, McCain's campaign was sunk.

Division within the Republican camp was apparent between McCain and Palin, and between each and the staffers.  You'll note that Obama's vice presidential selection was subject to equally excoriating scrutiny and rumors.

Fim

Capodistrias,

Palin certainly rallied much of the Christian Right faction of the Republican Party, but tactical victory here was strategic defeat.  These voters would have cast their votes for McCain irrespective of Palin; many undecided voters, however, were turned off by Palin.  The Democrats had an easier time of it after 8 years of Bush, and could keep their message to "hope" and "change".  The Republicans were torn by an identity crisis that continues to plague them.  Liberal urbanites who probably agreed with Republican economic policies were wary of hardline social conservatives and the Christian Right dictating the direction of the Party.  In fact both the Democrats and Republicans appear to host two distinct factions; perhaps four main parties are required?

Palin had nothing to do with McCain's lost and everything to do with why he had a chance, that is  until he stood down during the financial collapse, after having just called on Americans to stand up and fight with him at a very successful convention.

How many media platitudes can be put in a single sentence: failure as a candidate, galvanizing conservatives, elections decided by independents/moderates,  McCain's staff considered her a liability (really?, you believe everything on the US in the Frankfurter Allgemeine or Der Spiegel, which means everything in the NYTimes or on CNN?)..... 

The issue is not Palin. The issue is your "hilarious", i.e. your leftist media parroting, and your poor powers of empirical observation.  I did not offer one single item of 'defense' of Palin.  I am a Romney supporter (not a Palin fan, nor a McCain fan) .

The only "knee-jerk" reaction here is the red-flag impact of Ms Palin on leftist/liberal journalists and on some misguided and misnamed Euro-'conservatives'.

Palin was a failure as vice presidential candidate.  Despite galvanizing hardline conservatives, the election was decided by independents and moderates.  Her oratory mistakes rivalled even those of Bush, and McCain's staff considered her a liability to the campaign.

Referencing "media hate" and the "orthodox-euro-line" is merely the automated response I've come to expect from you.  Conservatives shouldn't feel compelled to defend the likes of Palin and Coulter.  They are indefensible positions and detrimental to any grand strategy leading to the White House.

Is there a parrot in the room?  Indeed.  It is calling out: knee-jerk, knee-jerk

Palin was a 'success' as a town mayor, and then as a governor of Alaska.  And how could she be a "disappointment" in another job that she never held?

The use of the term "hilarious" reveals a lack of independence from the leftist media crowd.  And what has Ann Coulter got to do with anything?  More parroting of media-hate against big-mouth women who fail to toe the orthodox-euro-line?   

One does not have to be a Palin-fan to be able to recognise a parrot for a parrot.

I meant that neither the German offensives of 1914 nor 1940 would have come as a surprise to M Eiffel, contrary to Tiberge's claim.  French military adventures in Africa fail to impress me, and are part and parcel of France's neo-imperial ambitions.

As for Palin, she was a hilarious disappointment.  And yet she seemed to have such promise.  Even more ridiculous than Palin's public relations management was Ann Coulter's defense of the woman Republican.

...could not storm...Luxembourg today.  The obstacle is not physical, but mental. Schroeder is working for Putin, and Die Linke wants to disarm and abolish nuclear power generation.  France is one of the few Western countries whose army is doing some actual fighting today, mainly in Africa though.  The Germans have been 'emasculated', first by the Ruskies and the Yanks, and later by their own political left.   What was the name again of that female German cabinet minister (for 'development cooperation', what a misnomer!) who preferred radical islamists to Bush?  She haunts my memory, for she 'predicts' the future.  But, Merkel is wise to be 'wary' of Obama and his mentors. 

Now, how is that for 'Palinesk Alaskan'  language?  

Germany’s acceptance into Western economic and security blocs, and access to Western aid and markets, was conditional upon Germany’s total deconstruction and renunciation of national socialism, establishment of democracy, etc. Turkiye, a formerly sworn enemy of Europe whose aggression has left an indelible mark on many European countries, is encouraged to integrate with Europe, even though it is non–European and has rejected neither supremacism (Islamic or Turkic) nor militarism e.g. “deep state”, counter–insurgency against the Kurds, etc. After forcing compliance from Germany, the EU is allowing itself to be overrun by non–Europeans, and is playing to immigrant, Turkish and Russian sensitivities. All pretensions otherwise to the contrary, France has been a promoter of Turkish integration as part of its continuing aim to resurrect its former global clout. The United States regards Turkiye as crucial to the renewed Great Game against China, Iran and Russia. The Western alignment of the Turkic countries of Central Asia is as vital to winning the Great Game as is placing Turkiye firmly in the West’s camp. Surely the Franco–Prussian War and German unification was fresh in M Eiffel’s memory. If the Germans could storm France once, they could do so again…