Yay! Campaign Round-Up is back! I missed it!

* Michael Steele, hoping to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee, lashed out yesterday at the party's "country club" mentality.

This is the new leader of the Republican party? The "country club" Repulicans haven't run the party since Eisenhower's second administration.

* And Sarah Palin, in the latest sign of her efforts to secure party support for a future campaign, has already agreed to be a featured guest at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). John McCain will reportedly not be invited to the event.

Operation Permanent Minority continues as planned.

What, no polls?

Bill Clinton, (and Al Gore) will be in Georgia campaigning for Jim Martin today.

I'm guessing the Ohio brigade of GOTV workers will have a greater impact.

It seems pretty shocking to me that CPAC wouldn't even invite Mccain. I mean, he was the party's presidential nominee and also took a hard turn to the right during the election. If they're openinly turning their back on him, does this signal that major GOP organizations are moving even farther down the crazy spectrum? They think McCain is too liberal to even attend their conference?

What doubtful said, @12:05; I, too,am very happy to see the resurrection of the buffet-style mid-day snack.

[...] 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). John McCain will reportedly not be invited to the event. -- Benen

Too maverickety and unpredictable?

It'll also be interesting to see who else accepts the invitation, now that Palin's appearance has been announced. She's not *universally* popular, even with the conservatives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "country club" Repulicans haven't run the party since Eisenhower's second administration. -- Jeff II, @12:17

Oh, I don't know... From where I sat, McCain's campaign might as well have adopted "Country Club First" as its motto. How else would you explain the insistence on tax cuts for the richest 1%, for which the rest of us were expected to pay? Or the total lack of understanding of and empathy for the concerns of millions of ordinary people? Not to mention the racial exclusiveness (is that a word? or should it be "exclusivity"?) something that Steele might be more aware of than most.

Erick Erickson over at redstate.org is claiming that Max Cleland is not a triple amputee and that he is not a decorated war hero!

So, who is the real liar, eh!?

This isn't directly campaign related, but as a good general point here's a link explaining how the CRA (and re ACORN) really didn't cause the housing crisis the way dextros say they did. Most of you know that, but this is good ref. and sound bites:

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/11/acorn_and_the_community_reinve.php#more?utm_source=readerspicks&utm_medium=link

Hey Jeff II, don't you remember Bush saying "...the haves, and the have-mores. I call 'em my base."? The Rs haven't been true common-folk populist for a long time, if ever.

Hey Jeff II, don't you remember Bush saying "...the haves, and the have-mores. I call 'em my base."? The Rs haven't been true common-folk populist for a long time, if ever. Posted by: Neil B ☺

He may have said that, but there aren't enough of them to have given the party the successes it has had since the 2000 election. It has been the social conservatives and low-information voters, most of them lower to middle income, who made up the bulk of the Rethugs electoral success. Once more to the well, see What's The Matter With Kansas. Remember, the "working class/blue collar" vote was reliably Democratic up until the late 1960s. Much less so since then. By the Reagan era, they have been as likely, as is true for about 50% of all voters, to vote Rethug as Dem.

I imagine that there are as many wealthy people supporting the Democratic party as support the Rethugs. The main difference is that the Rethugs don't care or have never tried to appeal to the poorest in our society. But since they, like the ultra-rich, really make up a relatively small portion of the electorate (not necessarily population), they don't matter much at the polls since they aren't "reliable" voters. Why would they bother if they feel neither party really cares?

Here's a thought...

John McCain is humiliated after losing a race he should have won because the base insisted on Palin.

McCain's good friend Joe Lieberman is publicly forgiven for his missteps during the campaign.

McCain is not invited to CPAC and Palin is.

McCain continues to be snubbed by his party by the very people that insisted Palin was the candidate. While the opposing party forgives his good friend. Do you think McCain might be feeling a little angst about his party and looking across the isle for some friendly faces, I do.

If the republicans are trying to help us with tight votes in the Senate they are doing a great job. If not, they are in serious trouble, and I could not be more delighted with his party snubbing and bad mouthing him.

I say we keep a close eye and maybe offer McCain something to bring him in even more. Give him a real chance to revive his reputation. Something with Veterans or POW's, something were he can shine.

Best of all, I have faith that Obama has thought of this long before anyone, hence the public forgiveness.

I thought Thomas Friedman wrote a compelling editorial in yesterday's (Nov.18) NYT re: the necessity for Obama to really 'have Hillary's back' if indeed he intends her to be an effective Secretary of State.

FWIW, I'll answer my own question to Friedman's essay and say: Yes, I think he does. And I think he will learn to even more --if needed.

I think Obama truly likes and admires Hillary. I don't think he sees her a true rival, in the purest sense of that word.

I'll never forget how proudly he spoke of her "Rocking the House" (during the speech) at the DNC.

I think they have a whole lot more in common than not.

Clinton and Gore go to Georgia to help Martin. While that's very nice of them, the only person who can energize the base of Democratic supporters in Georgia is Obama. The statistic I heard is that 40% of the Democratic voters who voted in the presidential race won't show up for this one.

I realize that Obama has tons of stuff to do, but isn't the possibility of getting one more vote in the Senate worth the effort? Or has Dean's 50 state strategy left with his departure?

In very late and limited news, turns out Obama won Salt Lake County, Utah's most populous.

In very late and limited news, turns out Obama won Salt Lake County, Utah's most populous.
Posted by: J. Bogart

This makes sense. Utah ceased to have a Moron, er, Mormon majority five or ten years ago. I would imagine that SLC is probably less than 40% Mormon now.

Re Sarah Palin at CPAC: What, was Ann Coulter unavailable this year?