let's see, McLame should trash to GOP and the outgoing President because they:

1 - saved us from a recession caused by the previous liberal admin
2 - triumphed in Iraq
3 - got Afgoofystan started on the road to peace
4 - showed why spending tax dollars on explosive growth in "affordable housing" is stupid, aka housing subprime crash
5 - continued bringing new weapon systems and strategies on line to protect America
6 - supported the old East Bloc nations to grow and bloom in their new freedom
7 - by moral and political leadership caused Western European voters to throw out the leftists in favor of America lovers
8 - resisted the fascist AGW scam, saving the economy from complete ruin

hmmmm, I know there's more but I'll leave it at that for now

How will this Republican ticket for change overcome the record of Republican rule over much of the past eight years?

Of course, the obvious answer to this is that it will be very difficult given the bulk of the media has no interest in seeing Republicans do this. 

The problem is that Republicans, although they have not been perfect, have too willingly accepted the notion that everything is a mess, and that mess was created by their decisions.  The truth is that, for most of the past eight years, the economy has been just fine, and the softening of late has little to do with Bush's and Republican policies.  The truth is that there have been no more terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.  The truth is that Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, along with his evil sons, and Afghanistan is free from the Taliban.  The truth is there is light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq. 

Republicans are too willing to accept the charges of the left as being true, they acquiesce to the charges.  McCain as much as did this last night in scolding his fellow party members for losing their way.  There is no question Republicans have lost their way somewhat in terms of spending; however, it is bad strategy to not fight back somewhat and properly demonstrate that Washington's failures are not owned solely by one party.  I've heard Republicans admit responsiblity for certain things; I have yet to hear any Democrats admit to much of anything--other than it's all Bush's fault.

Another thing that riles me about this whole deal is that Republicans are always criticized by the media for not "reaching out" to bring in outsiders.  Yet, Democrats are never chided for this very thing.  Do these ying-yangs honestly believe that Barack Obama is "reaching out" to those who may differ from him politically?  This is part of the media's perception that Democrats are, indeed, the party of the people and Republicans are the outsiders, the party of the wealthy and privileged.  It doesn't matter how much money Dems have, they are still viewed in this manner.  So Al Gore can live in a palatial estate that sucks energy, and he still can scold the rest of us for using too much fuel in our daily lives.  The media sees no hypocrisy.  Palin comes from a party that preaches abstinence, her teenage daughter gets pregnant, and to the press that is utter hypocrisy that must be stomped out.

They should pay it all back!

I have seen a record number of hissy fits this campaign, usually by one of these so called pundits, every time a candidate doesn't perform according to their wishes. This was just silly and Gregory IMHO needs to find a new profession preferably one which doesn't require thinking.

Scott. First, an aside. Did we all forget (and the media, as well)? Candidate Al Gore was in a bit of a bind back in 2000; undecided as to whether or not he wanted Bill Clinton following him around campaigning for him?

On the trashing issue: Understanding that McCain mentioned the corruption "only in reference to the Republicans," but then lashed out at both parties rather equally on spending and energy policy failures, I think McCain gaffed on the corruption issue.

Not only was Pres. Bush, in 2001, faced with the inheritance of a serious economic reversal (would result in massive federal deficits - millions of lost jobs, etc.) - the era of the mid to late 90's was marked by both corporate (and accounting fraud) corruption (Enron, WCOM, Global Crossing, CA energy crisis, etc.) and historic corruption within the halls of the White House.  With the name of Jack Abramoff being a household term in recent years (and again today with additional sentencing), McCain would have done good to remind us of rather consistent problems - non-party specific - and that the more recent corruption bits came on the heels of promises by the R's to clean up Washington following the filth of the late 90's. The failure was compounded by not delivering on the promise to really clean up after the 90's. 

For example, Jack Abramoff, to the best of my recollection did not spend nearly as much time in the Bush WH as did James Riady, and friends, in the Clinton WH.

JAMES RIADY PLEADS GUILTY WILL PAY LARGEST FINE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE HISTORY FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW 

To be fair, on occasion, a few news outlets did write isolated and fairly good stories on the dirt here, but it never became a rabidly pushed story such that the voters of the country become aware of, as do those which involve the R's. In fact, I remember speaking to a certain LA Times editor, in their Washington office, one who said that he'd extensively covered such stories during the Clinton years, who confessed no knowledge that any convictions had ever been handed down on James Riady and friends - he implied that that was all just some of that vast right-wing conspiracy stuff. If the national news editors don't even know the news, how in the heck are the voters ever going to find out?

The Riadys' Persistent Pursuit of Influence

(;~> gary

OK, duct tape's on!

Barack Obama just "talks" about bringing people together, in spite of being a far lefty, and they all swoon.  Did Gregory or anyone else question what Obama would actually DO to bring people together? John McCain has a history (unfortunately IMO) of operating in the middle, while Obama is the most far-left member of the Senate.

Also, notice how Gregory says  "overcome the record of Republican rule over much of the past eight years?") (emphasis added)

That's so he can conveniently ignore the fiasco that has been the Democrat-controlled Congress for the past 18 months and their 9% approval rating.

...his own party for:

Saying the war in Iraq was lost (Harry Reid)

Trashing the reputation of out servicemen at Gitmo (Dick Turban)

Continuously trashing and personally insulting Bush (just about every Dem in Congress)

Refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts

Refusing to give good, extremely competent judicial nominees an honest hearing in the Senate

Refusing to toss Congressman Jefferson of LA for corruption

Convicting the Haditha Marines before they were investigated (John Murtha) and then refusing to apologize for being wrong when they were exonerated

And these are just the obvious things BHO could criticize his party about.

But then again, he can't even admit he's wrong about anything, so why would he criticize his compatriots?

Sarah Palin's actics make Obama's look like a trip to the amusement park.   And still the right-wingers think she is a princess.  Let's see: Evangelicals admire, corruption, abuse of power, pitbulls, etc.  But most of all they love women usurping the authority of men. That is biblical Pat Robertson.  Read it!