1 The core message of the party is fine. Our problem is the "party leaders" who mouth it but refuse to live it. Purge their asses.

2 Yeah, Gabe, but c) won't cut it when a) won't deliver on those principles. We have to cut a ton of deadwood.

3 I'm voting for "none of the above". I believe that Republicans are losing because they have, as a party, forgotten who they are. All of them.

4
I've yet to see polling data suggesting which segment(s) of the GOP stayed home.

5 I guess it might fall into (a), but how about (d) not "liberals," nor "conservatives" or any other particular ideology in the party, whether "social" or "fiscal," but corrupt pigs in Congress and the GOP establishment who thought they could buy themselves a lifetime in the majority by trading principle (ANY principle) for pork and stupid inside-the-beltway games.

The brand is tarnished, and probably tarnished for a while.

6 I'm sensing a trend in the responses....

7 I can't believe the House caucus is even considering keeping Boehner on as the Minority Leader. And the only guy opposing him is a gun-grabber from California.

This is symptomatic. Every Republican Congressional leader should be shown the metaphorical "empty office with a loaded pistol sitting on the desk". Time for new blood in Congressional leadership - and support for Bailoutpalooza should be the litmus test.

8

You forgot one...

(d) the media believes that Job #1 is to discredit any articulate or charismatic conservative to prevent the widespread consideration of conservative values and ideas.

9 Borders, language, culture...rule of law.

10 B is the answer. Again, historically there is always a swing in the opposite direction after 8-12 years. No reason to become democrats light.

11

(e) We're held to be guilty by association by anyone who doesn't like Bush.  Which, like it or not, is a whole lot of fuckin' people.

12

I choose all of the above in this fashion

A) 5%: Simply because it stands to reason that in a group as large as a political party, there is bound to be a group who will "take their ball and go home" if their candidate of choice is not at the top of the ticket. There were a significant number of Republicans who did not vote this year for any number of reasons, but there will always be 3-5% of either party who are dissatisfied with the way the party currently is.

B) 90%: This is the real problem. I'm a young guy (23) and most people my age get their political information from the likes of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Watch any type of "Jay-Walking" segment on late night TV shows (hell, even Hannity did a couple "Man on the Street" interviews right before the election). Most of the people interviewed couldn't tell you who the VP was, who was running, who the hell their own congressmen were, and it's hard to fight against this kind of crap when people don't care to learn the truth. For the last 2 years, Dems have controlled everything but the White House, and yet everything over the last 2 years is still Bush's fault. How do you fight that kind of ignorance? When most people interveiwed say their voting for Obama either because (1) he's black or (2) he's gonna "change" things (without being able to name specific changes) it's clear they don't care to know, they just wanna "make history" by voting for the new, young, black guy.

C) 5%: John McCain did not inspire many of us conservatives, at least not until Sarah Palin, who angered some within the pary (see choice A). I'm one of those who feel McCain was helped early on my open primaries and was helped to the top by a split in conservative votes in early primaries along with Democrat cross-over votes in places like NH. John McCain seemed to timid to attack Obama for any number of reasons discussed here (He like his media favor, he's too stubborn on his idea of what "honor" is, etc.)

13 The moron component of the party.  You know, the ones who argued that Obama was born in Kenya, or that he lost his US citizenship in Indonesia, or that Nostrafuckingdamus proves that he is the Antichrist.  the ones who cheerleaded for Rumsfeld when it was obvious that he was fucking up.  The ones who love war, as long as they don't have to fight in it.  That crowd.  Do you happen to know any of them?

14 I blame W and his "compassionate conservatism" bullshit.

Yeah, let's change the Republicans into Democrats-lite.  Sure, the Democrats/media/left (sorry for the redundancy) will still slam us as evil heartless racist fascists, but we'll also piss off the base! 

Good fucking plan.

15

Anyone disappointed by what went down at the RGA this week?  Not one of them, from Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal, Crist, etc. offered anything substantive as a way we can get ourselves out of this mess.  It turned into a mugging for the cameras.  We heard rhetoric about "Sam Club's voters" and "reaching out to minorities" without any explanation as to how it is we do that without sacrificing conservative principles.  It seems that the governors believe that the best way to persuade voters is to change the way we market and advertise the issues.  Newt seems head and shoulders above these young-guns in what he is offering in terms of conservative policy proposals that can appeal to wide swath of the electorate.  I didn't hear one governor this week offer an idea that was not broad and backed up with any roadmap as to how we implement that idea.

16 But aren't there better alternatives to these three? One can view this result as cyclical: in modern times, the same party doesn't win the WH three consecutive times. In addition, is the electorate ignorant for thinking that the domestic policies actually followed by Bush and the Republican legislators are problematic? Is it ignorant for them to think that illegal immigration has been encouraged to the point of insanity and that McCain would do more of the same because most Republican elites believe in it? Now, one might say, "but B. Hussein Obama would be even worse." Perhaps so. But he claims otherwise, and voters have good information about hte other party's previous president. One might say, "but Bush was no conservative Republican, so one can't blame conservatism for any problems!" Yet voters cannot vote in a "true conservative," but only a Republican or a Democrat. We know perfectly well that the economy is the biggest area of concern in elections. We know that in this area, Bush outspent CLINTON (excluding Bush's military expenditures, so this is a fair comparison). We know that Bush triangulated in Iraq by doing nothing regarding Iran. We know he did nothing about N. Korea. He spent his second term fiddling around with the Fakestinians and embracing Arabian kings and princes. We also know that when McCain was a "maverick" it included campaign finance reform and even MORE illegal aliens. Maybe I just misunderstand the alternatives you pose, Ace, but I think the average Joe is not totally ignorant this time around. Some things can't be "explained" better; they are just hopelessly dumb.

17 c is the cause of b.

It is up to the head of each party to effectively communicate the ideas of his party.  It's not that complicated.

18 I am going for F
If the economy tanks as some are predicting this conversation about social conservatives v social liberal would have been a waste of time.

19 (f) We're not offering as much money as the Dems to an electorate that is increasingly out for what it can get.

20

>Jim62sch:  The core message of the party is fine. Our problem is the "party leaders" who mouth it but refuse to live it. Purge their asses.<<

My sentiments exactly.  All the GOP leaders should be nervous.  I can't think of any reason any of them should keep their postions.  Especially the ones who want to blame social conservatives for the GOP's current situation.  It was the social conservatives who brought the GOP to the dance, after all.

I want to see blood on the floor.  Hell, I want to see blood splattered on the wall.

21 d. A corrupted brand caused by corrupted politicians who have been more interested in power and rewards than accomplishing the objectives of our dogma.

22 Icus shows his concern.

23

I think John McCain sums up a lot of things wrong with the current party and Sarah Palin sums up what must be done.

There is no "reaching across the isle" when there is no give and take from the other side.

You defeat the enemy, not work with them.

People don't give a woot about bipartinship, it is a media construct that Republicans fall for everytime without fail. Just like Lucy and that damn football.

You don't go to the center/left in an effort to become "more moderate" you just turn into "Democrat Lite" which will never get you democrat votes anyway as long as you have that (R)

Why should they vote for the dem lite party when they can vote for the (D)?

24 Jim nailed it from the get-go.  The party "leaders", the elected representatives; the one's who talked like Republicans and acted like Democrats,  THEY SCREWED US!

And John McCain was one of them!

25 Definitely and clearly B, and by extension, C.  McCain failed so often to explain why Obama was distorting reality, and why his positions even so were wrong.  A large portion of the electorate today doesn't know what socialism is or why it's bad.  They don't see "spreading the wealth" for the code language that it is.

McCain isn't a conservative, and doesn't have a coherent and explicable philosophy of his own.  Therefor, he couldn't draw a distinction between himself and Obama on much of anything, and couldn't succinctly educate people.

The basic problem is that, through years of public eduation decay, we've got a stupid electorate.  Immigration amnesty is going to make that even worse: we're going to have another 50 million people (you watch) who give a damn about American history or why the system is the way it is. Or rather, the way it was.

26 The problem, from my perspective, is a bit of (a) and (b), because of a factor that is mentioned in some of the other responses, but ignored in the primary entry.  The problem is one of identity.  Republicans don't even know who we are, so how can we expect the public to know who we are?  Part of the reason why Obama won is because he gave people reasons to vote for him.  They may not have been legitimate reasons, but they were good enough in the eyes of the electorate.  I believe one of the things we need in the coming years is someone who can create and implement a "brand" for the GOP.  What I mean by that, is someone who can go out to the public and say, "This is what we stand for, This is what we stand against, and these people do not stand for the same things we do."  We need more accountability in our party if we're going to try and be the party that holds Washington accountable.

I hope that made sense...

27 I'm in serious disbelief that McCain never got around to explaining that the fannie mae/freddie mac mess was the congressional democrats fault

28

We need all parts of the GOP coalition to win. So...

1. Select a national candidate than can articulate a national consistent, coherent message based on principles the libgops, congops and libertarians can agree on. (a list ot 10 items was posted on another thread).

2. The message must be fashioned as a pro-active positive vision for the country as well as address perceived problems in a principled, coherent way.

3. Allow local candidates to run as they need to in their states, districts etc without calling them kindergarten playground names.

4. Quit blaming each other and work together starting today.

 

29

>>There is no "reaching across the isle" when there is no give and take from the other side.<<

Old McCain always had "reach across the isle" confused with "the old reach around".

It's sad, really.

30 Small government. Economic liberty. Individual opportunity and individual responsibility. The social issues are important, but they're meaningless without freedom. I don't know where this fits into your multiple choice question. I do agree with those who say all current party leaders should be purged.

31 Actually, it's "aisle", not "isle", for you OCD pedanticists.

32 "3. Allow local candidates to run as they need to in their states, districts etc without calling them kindergarten playground names."

Yes, if this includes "stop trying to hand pick the local candidates from the top down;" and "make the RNC and RSC and whatnot stay the fuck out of primaries." (Think of the disgusting RNC support for Lincoln Chafee.)

33 (b) and (d) GOP in Washington that expanded government and helped the electorate to be suspicious of anything remotely Republican.

34

Posted by watcher ....

I starting making my own list the other night, but I wound up with 10 things:
1. Yes to secret ballots for unions, no to card check
2. Yes to border enforcement, no to amnesty for illegals
3. Yes to parental notification, no to partial-birth abortion
4. Yes to energy independence, no to cap and trade
5. Yes to broad-based tax cuts, no to class warfare
6. Yes to peace through strength, no to appeasing our enemies
7. Yes to free markets, no to government bailouts
8. Yes to earmark reform, no to the culture of corruption
9. Yes to school vouchers, no to sex-ed in kindergarten
10. Let states define marriage without forcing definitions on other states


Are those things that social/economic/defense cons can all support?

 

35 Palin still leading the Wolverine 2012 GOP Primary, Romney has 0 votes. Click on my link if you want to vote.

36 D. George Bush, Delay, Hastert and all those "repbulicans" that decided the history of fiscal responsibility, small government, accountability and responsibility to be chucked.

The Republicans had a brand. What happened over the last 8 years is a lot like the New Coke fiasco. These individuals took it upon themselves to emulate the Democrat tactics rather than fight it.

37 "Republicans are losing right now primarily because of ________."

(a) social liberals, social conservatives, or another component of the Party
(b) the ignorant electorate (i.e. the economy or another external event determines the outcome)
(c) John McCain

Thanks for the test geared to high-school dropout meth-heads.  Now could we please post the high-school graduate level exam?

38 I think B is basically correct, though I might put it slightly differently.  True, "It assumes that the Republican Party and its core message are correct and in no need of adjustment/triangulation," but we also have to be good at understanding, articulating, and selling our core message (and we've been pretty sucky at all three.)

Joe the Plumber wound up articulating our core message better than John McCain, Sarah Palin, congressional Republicans, *and* all our variously-flavored pundits, and that's not a good signal.  (Pretty much everybody seemed to conclude something like "Ah, don't bother fighting socialism any more.  Everybody loves socialism now, and we'll look like big meanies unless we softpedal that."

Anyway, what I'm getting at is it's important to not let B turn into an argument for complacency.

39

Individual opportunity and individual responsibility.

And here we come to the problem.  Over the last few decades, our betters have done almost everything possible to eliminate that, and replace it with government safety nets.  No job?  Welfare.  Can't pay mortgage?  No problem, we'll buy it.  Got yourself hooked on smack?  Here's some methadone.  You bought something that didn't do exactly what was advertised?  Sue the piss out of everyone you've ever heard of.

So now we have tens of millions of people in this country who honestly believe that Uncle Sam should take care of whatever happens, and don't like hearing differently.  Petulant Spoiled Teenager Syndrome, writ national.

40

This talk of purging people from the party is stupid, idiotic, counter productive.. did I mention stupid?

The problem is, as has been said before, we have no coherent message and people delivering it that resonates with the a large enough amount of the electorate.  You can't beat something, even hopey, changey bullshit after your party has taken 8 years of hammering, hasn't lead well and the economy is tanking, with absolutely nothing.  McCain was actually up in the polls right before the economy slid into the crapper indicating that even with a weak message and up against an onslaught of money, vote fraud and the msm cheerleading for the other side, the country isn't that enamored of The One.

We just need people who can actually lead with a solid message and the people, liberal Republicans, conservative Republicans, Blue Dog Dems and people without a cool group name, will respond.

41

#30 is right! Also, we need to encourage people to feel proud of this country and all its accomplishments.  It's going to be even more difficult now that the media is openly, blatantly campaigning against us . . . and then there's public education. Oy. If we don't do something soon, nothing we do will matter.

42 Wolverine, I know it'd be tough to do, but you definitely need some "write-ins," unless we count votes for Wolverine as "None of the above/I'm thinking of someone else."

I mean, I like Palin, but 4 years is a long time, and some other good options may well present themselves. Pawlenty? Crist? Petraeus? (For that matter, John McCain will only be 76.... -- I KID!!!)

43 And the correct answer is (d) none of the above.  While one can pick any number of immediate cause for the recent defeat, the underlying reason is a fundamental shift in the US electorate.  Over the last eighty years, the US has drifted to the left and is now a center-left country.  To be sure, this has occurred in fits and starts but the drift has been inexorable.  In short, the American people have become politically self-centered and now want the perceived benefits of nanny-state socialism while having someone else pay for them.

Therefore, the GOP faces three unpleasant alternatives.  Move left and compete, move right and wait or stay put and lose.

44

The main component missing in the GOP strategy is strength. In other words, conservatives need to grow a pair so they can start to point out the obvious flaws in logic of liberals. Take, for example, the illegal immigration issue. Those of us on the right have always looked upon this a legal issue. We don't mind folks moving here as long as they abide by our laws and work within the system. It is our country, after all. And the system was set up for some very good reasons.

As soon as you raise the illegal immigration issue, leftists begin screaming "That's racist, and you're a racist and a xenophobe and your father smells of elderberries!" I'm still waiting for a conservative to ask at that point, "Do you have a front door on your residence? Is there a lock on that door? If so, why?" and watch what happens. We can get our point across without being rectal about it.

45

Once again:

Bullshit is bullshit.

(a) social liberals, social conservatives, or another component of the Party

Yes, people people will bicker with each other. I don't know why.

These supposed 'purists' blaiming the RINO's. Who do they want to get rid of? Who?

No seriously - who? Name names.

Nobody but nobody - sure as hell not Ted Nugent - has been saying "We need to kick Gabriel Malor (or any others of you) out of the party to win".

Nobodies talking about voters.

It's the politicians. We need to kick wussy ass politicians out and replace them.

On this score, who will you defend? You all agree about who sucks (except 5 of you who should be in a different party).

Because, as we went over, there are no socially liberal republican politcians who aren't also fiscally liberal. They're not another camp within the party. They're just liberal. On everything.

And people who are liberal - on everything - are called liberals, and ought be in the liberal party. Which ain't us. And no one (save David Brooks) thinks we should be the liberal party.

We're attacking and defending charicatures, archetypes that, while theoretically possible, don't actually exist in nature. Not in our political system at this time. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative politicians. There are none.

The people the social cons hate (socially liberal, fiscally liberal politicians) are the same damn people the fiscal cons hate (socially liberal, fiscally liberal politicians)!

You're all up in each others face and steppin' on each others junk because you're both hating the same damn people for the wrong reasons.

Ted Nugent was talking about politicians like Chuck Hagel. Not people like you (unless you're a huge Hagel fan, in which case speak up). Not everyone's always talking about YOU personally you know. So get the fuck off the cross, everyone, or specifically - if you're gonna argue that Nugent is being divisive - defend Chuck Hagel and tell us why the GOP needs Hagel, and guys like him (like you, presumable Hagelhead).

Those dumbfuck backwater jesus freaks hate Chuck Hagel because he's a bastard, and those effete pasty homosexual trust babies hate Chuck Hagel because he's a dumbass.

Why argue about why? Let's go agree to hate on Chuck Hagel.

46

From the perspective of a flaming liberal, the GOP's problem is two-fold:

     1. Too much far-right rhetoric

     2. Too many crooks and doofuses in office

90% of the voters are in the range from center-left to center-right

Either party that moves too far from the center will lose.  But the voters swing left and right over time, and it looks like they are swinging left now.

So clean house and restock with principled conservatives.  Your time will come again.  In the meantime act as a check on Democratic excess.

 

47 The social con issues can be addressed via strong advocacy of federalism. Push things like abortion and gay marriage down to the state level and let it be fought out there. The libertarians will be happy about a weaker federal government and the social cons will be happy that they potentially would be able to address their concerns at a more local level, where they have more power.

48 @ 27, Village Idiot


I'm in serious disbelief that McCain never got around to explaining that the fannie mae/freddie mac mess was the congressional democrats fault


Why would you expect McCain to explain something he didn't understand?

Meanwhile, Boehner was sitting in the corner complaining vociferously about the "crap sandwich" on his plate, but eating it anyway.

In a nice, neat nutshell, the unmitigated disaster that now comprises the Republican party.

49 (f) It was just really bad timing for us.  Republicans have had the White House for 8 years, and historically, it's very hard to win a "3rd term".  The financial market meltdown occurred at the worst time as well, and we were running a candidate aptly described as "Bob Dole without the charisma and conservatism" against one who had an abundance of charisma.  It just wasn't our time.

(g) We do need to get back to our principles.

In general, things are ascending or descending.  Republicans/conservatives had a good, long ascension starting in 1980, getting a huge boost in 1994, but at some point after that, they started abandoning their principles and governing incompetently - i.e. descending.  Now we've hit bottom, time to start ascending again ... just remember (g) though.

50 This talk of purging people from the party is stupid, idiotic, counter productive.. did I mention stupid?

JackStraw, I do not want to purge people from the party. I want to purge hypocritical politicians from the party. These politicians articulate conservative dogma (hell, even Obama stole a lot of that rhetoric), and then they turn into Porkmeistering power-grabbers once elected.

Purge the politicians, not the voters. Give the voters a clear choice.

51 I blame McCain.
The party can handle differences in opinion on certain issues.
McCain and Bush made several huge strategic errors that cost the party.
First, the failure to defend or articulate Bush policies.  Bush refused to defend himself using the bullypulpit.  He refused to push back against crazy negative stories.  McCain bought into that.  He let Bush be an anchor because he refused to say hey, I agree with Bush where he was successful, winning the GWOT (or at least trying), innovative world aid and development, record job growth.  They surrendered on it.  Bush is hated by the left, but not by normal people.  The negatives on Bush are more a result of a lack of positive treatment, not that he did something so awful.
Second, Bush and McCain bought the recent economic melt down.  They stayed quiet while the left put the blame solely on them.  They refused to push their version of events.  Come on, fannie mae may not have been the 100% cause of the crisis, but it was very important.  They let the left blame them, and that is where McCain lost the election.
The electorate may be ignorant, but neither of our "leader" had the ability or will to inform them.
Finally, McCain, so much for your promise to fight for us.  You sat back and took it.  You let them destroy Palin, so that the election was more about a deified Barack versus hick, godbag Palin.  McCain broke his promise and refused to fight.

52 I went with B, which is caused by (1) a media which is in the tank for any Democrat who can fog a mirror and (2) a Republican party leadership that panders instead of informs.

I'm going with the assumption that the McCain campaign knew they could hang the economic mess on the Dems, but thought that 80% of the electorate was too dumb to understand it.

Hey GOP...try us some time.  We might surprise you.

53 BTW, The Other McCain has a great column on this very topic.

54 "None of the Above"

All the errors are self-inflicted.

1. The slate of republican primary candidates in the aggregate were not representative of conservative values. Only Fred represented all three pillars (fiscal, social, and security) of conservatism and he ran a lousy campaign.

2. President Bush has to bear a major amount of the blame for 2006 and 2008. In 2006, he should have fired SoD Rumsfeld (if he planned to do so anyway) a month before the election, not a week after.

A 9% approval rating for a sitting president must have included both liberals and conservatives, he even lost many of his stalwart supporters.

President Bush's spending (and that of a republican Congress) throughout his two terms was not conservative. It was liberal give-a-ways.

The once in a lifetime financial crisis in and of itself was overwhelming given a republican president, but the daily drumbeat of televised speeches by President Bush and Hank Paulson was the best advertisement Obama could have possibly had.

Obviously, McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and inject himself right into the middle of it on Capital Hill only made him look like he was part of the problem. Then, he had no visible solution to the problem.

55

"Republicans are losing right now primarily because of ________."

Fear.

Fear of being who we are and what we stand for.

Fear of retribution by a malignant press.

Fear of prosecution by a corrupt Congress.

Fear of using the power we have...or had.

Fear of a world that hates us.

Fear of being responsible for our errors.

Fear of being right.

56 I've seen so much evidence of "B" that I tend to lean that way...

..."he's just different!"

57 Too many crooks and doofuses in office

And the Dems just gave us a Chicago Machine politician (a place where honest means "stays bought") whose staffing His administration with all the guys who had a hand in the Fannie Mac fiasco. (Except for the likes of Frank and Dodd who get to keep their jobs.)

58 Eight years of Big Government Republicanism combined with Bush's steadfast refusal to push back against an increasingly biased media have led to a lot of resentment on both sides of the aisle.

Our dysfunctional primary system combined with an overabundance of fatally flawed candidates led to our party nominating someone that disenchanted conservatives tended to despise even more than they did Bush.

McCain ran an abysmal campaign which utterly failed to put the blame for the financial crisis where it truly belongs, played up the issue of Ayers when it was too late to do any good, and completely took a pass on Jeremiah Wright altogether... McCain was the main problem, but it didn't help that the campaign was staffed by moronic backbiting cocksuckers.  (It also didn't help that the media was busy deifying Obama throughout the entire election.)

59 I choose B.

60 You left off the most important and indeed qualifying answer: lack of balls.

61 notropis point taken!

62 I also blame the water in DC.

63

You left off the most important and indeed qualifying answer: lack of balls.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I just said.

64 "Republicans are losing right now primarily because of ________."

Because when Republicans do not give voters a reason to vote FOR them instead of against the Democrat, they lose.

Because when Republicans name a "conservative" candidate who is only conservative on the issue of abortion, they lose. Not that they need to be pro-choice, but they can't merely be pro-life on abortion but willing to raise taxes and be "Me too" with liberals on too many issues. I think this is the biggest problem the GOP faces today.

Because during the last 8 years when the GOP controlled the house, senate or white house (or any combination of the 3) the GOP spent like how Democrats are expected to spend. There's a loss of credibility that won't be easy to rebuild.

65 Oh, and I blame Mike Ditka. He could have nipped this whole Obama thing in the bud several years ago (not that I think McCain could have beaten Hillary....)

66

Raoul @ 57:

Democrats will pay the price for that in 2010 and 2012

BTW - I'm a liberal, but I'm not a Democrat

67

From the perspective of a flaming liberal, the GOP's problem is two-fold:

     1. Too much far-right rhetoric

What would you, as a liberal, consider "far-right" rhetoric and where did you hear it during the election campaign?

68 If a Republican candidate wants to campaign on centrist or center-right ideology, I have no problem with that. If it works in their district, that's fine.

The problem is that these assholes campaign as Reagan Reborn in the primaries: "I will cut taxes! I will cut spending! I will fight corruption!" Then they almost never keep their damn promises and make Republicans look like shit.

Remember Bush the Elder and "Read my lips"? The real crime is hypocrisy. Let's punish that. If a Republican from New Hampshire campaigns for Congress on a center-right platform and wins, let's welcome him. If a Republican from Texas competes on a social-con platform and wins, let's welcome him. But let's crucify all the hypocrites who lie in their campaigns and ensure that the Republican Brand stands for honesty above all.

69 I'll go with b) provided that the cause of b) is us and not the electorate.  Unfortunately people still associate ignorant with stupid; see the Democrat's and the media's (but I repeat myself) response to the electorate post-2004 election.  Uninformed is the right word.

Yes, this poor, dumb engineer is discussing semantics.  But isn't that the point?  If no one understands what the hell you're talking about you couldn't give away welfare.  We have become the party of ideas that doesn't know how to convey the ideas.

This year we wound up with a Republican candidate that didn't want to run as a Republican.  Too many opportunities to separate us from the Dems and McCain chose not to.  The final straw came with the liquidity/housing crisis; McCain should have named Names, Actions, Dates and Results of the people in political power even if it was Rep.  Instead he went after the "greed" of Wall Street.  He forgot that Wall Street's road greed is built upon the foundation of political power, with its materials being the power to tax, the power to regulate and the power to litigate.  I sometimes wonder if the Dems pulled an Operation Chaos on us.  Or maybe McCain was more concerned about his redoubt if the election failed.

Now we'll see the results of this lost election.  The real loss will be the tools we had to communicate our ideas:

•   The re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine that will dry up AM talk radio.

•  Regulation and taxation of the Internet will dry up conservative blogs.

To those who say it will swing both ways (ie. MSM on Fairness, HuffPo on the Internet) I say "Yeah, right."

There's nothing wrong with our ideas.  We've forgotten how to convey them.  And now we're losing new tools to convey them.

If we're going to make a comeback we better have a playbook based on the outcomes of The One's actions.

70 The neat thing about "b" is that is not our fault, and there isn't anything we can do about.

Not the way I would choose to live.

71

They also tend to forget the majority of the electorate for whom they are representing when they get elected. For example people like Joe Six Pack.

72 Because President Bush tarnished the Republican brand on fiscal conservatism, the public will not believe in a Republican candidate who says they are fiscally conservative.  It needs to be someone with a proven record.  I think the only kind of viable Republican Presidential candidate for 2012 will be someone with executive experience who, first and foremost, has a record of being fiscally conservative and understands the basic laws of economics.

(I'm still a Bush fan for keeping American safe since 9/11, though)

73

They also need to stop this whole nonsense about "turning the other cheek."It has not been working. They should fight "eye for an eye."

The reason why the democrats can trounce all over the Republicans is because the Republican are too pussy to fight back. When I watch Congress in action, I want to see some Republicans yelling, stomping feet, pounding the podiums. In other words, I want to see some passion.

74 I've begun to think the real problem is the nature of the people who go into politics.

Politics is one of the few areas where you can get rich without producing anything. You get rich by having control over vast areas of business. It's in business's interest to steer that control. Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" elaborates on this.

Thus, on the Republican side we guys mouthing a philosophy that is counter to their own personal interest. The philosophy is best for society at large, and people realize it when it's articulated properly.

But that philosophy won't make you rich - where the "anti-rich" mumbo-jumbo of the Dims makes them personally very rich and extends their influence and power, at the expense of the public. See Fanny and Freddie and the current auto bailout proposal.

I'm just about at the point where I only want to see people running for Republican office who have worked in the private sector. Yes, more "regular" people, like Palin. And we have yet to really see if she believes in capitalism and the free market.

Otherwise, the saying that "politics is show biz for ugly people" really is true. Republicans are just voting for the best actor.

Or do you believe Christian Bale really is Batman?

75

The answer is (d) not enough grassroots activism.

Seriously, Obama kicked our fannies on this one.  We need to get out there, get organized, put some boots to the pavement and support our local candidates, and if we live in a completely red area, go to a neighboring blue swing district and help that R candidate out.

76 Yes, more "regular" people, like Palin. And we have yet to really see if she believes in capitalism and the free market.

Bullcrap. She fought like a tigress to make the gas pipeline an "open bid" project.

77 OregonMuse: Far-right rhetoric: Bomb Iran, double gitmo, evolution isn't real, nor is global warming, homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice, gay marriage is the biggest issue facing this country, deregulate everything, tax cuts for the rich "trickle down" to everyone else, "you're with us or with the terrorists," "libruls hate America" I didn't say I heard all of that during the campaign, but I've been hearing it.

78 @ 69, David


There's nothing wrong with our ideas. 


How is the $700 billion bailout consistent with Republican ideas?  Or, the huge increases in the federal budget, federal deficit, and federal social programs promulgated by Bush and the (then) Republican congress, post Phil Graham?  Or the Republican supported, secret pork-barrel appropriations?  Or the collapse of security at our southern border?  Or the Republican coddling of congressional criminals such as Ted Stevens and William Jefferson?

The problems of the Republican party are strategic, not tactical, and represent a failure of "ideas."

79 The problems of the Republican party are strategic, not tactical, and represent a failure of "ideas."

Republican Party candidates did not campaign on any of these "ideas" like Bailoutpalooza. They campaigned on Goldwater and Reagan's ideas, but were total fucking hypocrites about it.

80 Jim62sch,

I agree about the pipeline but we need to see more of that.

And, not just with Palin, we need to see a long standing, well-articulated defense of freedom, like with Reagan, that indicates a philosophical/personal commitment to the ideas.

81 I'm just about at the point where I only want to see people running for Republican office who have worked in the private sector. Yes, more "regular" people, like Palin.

And that was one of my big disappointments with this election. We could have had, as P. and V.P., a military man and a business owner/operator. Instead, we got a couple of lawyers. God help us all.

82 It is really quite simple and I think several posters hit on it.  If you run for office as a conservative and get elected as a conservative then you need to govern as a conservative.

Abandoning the principles that put you in office is tantamount to calling those that voted for you, "Idiots"!  Conservatism sells; compromising those conservative principles means that you sold out...yourself and your constituents!  No one candidate is going to appeal to every voter's hot button issue...no small government, fiscal conservative is going to attract the big government nanny statist vote so no need to try.  A Conservative National candidate needs to establish a proven conservative track record; one that voters can believe in; one that demonstrates principles; one that shows he/she does not compromise those core principles; one that he/she can stand up and say, "I'm proud of that vote on ___________, it reflects the will of my constituents."

83

I believe the main problem is that we have built a national government that is to big to control. Neither party can do it. It is full of waste and corruption with both houses of congress and the office of the president dysfunctional.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it empowered the states to run their own business. Since WWII the federal government has been taking more and more of the states power. We send money to Washington and hope they send part of it back so we can fund our schools, transportation etc. the result of that is a city full of bureaucrats that answer to no one and have a job for life as long as they don’t murder someone in the office with them.

The conservative message used to be a federalist message. We need to elect leaders that go to Washington to make sure we are secure first and then start cutting back government interference in all other aspects of our lives. I think that message would sell again now as it did in the past.

 

84 Jim62sch,

I agree about the pipeline but we need to see more of that.

rinseandspit, here's another - Palin reduces business fees. There's plenty of evidence of Sarah's pro-business stance but you have to open your eyes and look.

85 Further - There are only so many instances where you get pissed on and some Rep or Senator is telling you it is raining.  After a while the stench of your pissed stained clothes is going to get to your nostrils.

I say FUCK those liberals in conservative clothing!!  If we get some <b>real</b> conservatives we can win elections.

86 Arbuthnot,

Those actions are the from the ideas of RINOs, which led us up to the year we wound up with a Republican candidate that didn't want to run as a Republican.

87

In other words, I want to see some passion.

I gotta disagree there, I don't want emotion. I want cold, stark, stoic reality.

I want the term "compassionate conservatism" thrown on the Trash Heap Of Bad Ideas.

I want my representatives to tell the American public that if they want a decent health care plan they need to get up off their fat lazy behinds and work for it.

Oh, you came into this country illegally so your children wouldn't starve?  Well, sounds to me like you need to go back to your dang country and FIX IT.

My, a large mass of civilians got killed in that terrorist raid?  Why that's just a shame those guys dress EXACTLY LIKE YOU.  Sure seems like the US isn't to blame when we can't sort you out so we have to let Allah do it.

Whoa, you lost your home because you couldn't pay for it?  I guess you shouldn't have bought it then, huh?  Here's a dollar; go buy some foresight.

You poor junkie, you can't afford a clean needle?  Okay, I'll give you one as long as you promise to OD with it so we don't have to keep subsidizing your self-inflicted "disease."

No yelling, no stamping, no nonsense needed, just some good old-fashioned, "Suck it up, Buttercup" attitude from our elected officials.  That's that I want.

88 Bad actors and bad policy. Crooked, immoral idiots and pigs at the trough. 40% problem was the demonization of Bush, 60% of the problem was Republicans in Congress. Once you give away your integrity you can't get it back.

89

IMHO, the real #1 reason for the current Republican rout is George W. Bush. The most unpopular president of the last 100 years, who had no idea what he was getting into in Iraq, who thought fighting radical Islam would be like fighting Nazis in WWII, who spent federal money like a drunken democrat, and who enlarged the deficit and the federal government more than had any democrat ever holding that office, is the root cause here.

Had Bush been as popular as, say, Clinton, with Clinton's bull market, do you think so many of the electorate, who indeed ARE disgustingly ignorant, would have voted for hopenchange? Of course not.

The economy killed McCain, just as it did Dubya's daddy in 1992.

And with the Dims buying so many votes, and stealing what they can't buy, it is a poor lookout for Republicans in the near future. Especially with a partisan and complicit mainstream media still in control of the "news".

 

 

 

 

 

90

In other words, I want to see some passion.

I gotta disagree there, I don't want emotion. I want cold, stark, stoic reality.

I should clarify my statement. I meant passion as in kicking some ass type of passion. Not lets play nice type of passion.

91 Economy Ethics & corruption National security Education Health care Taxes Iraq Social Security Abortion Immigration

I bet if you looked at most elections, these are the issues almost always on top.  You might reorder some of the top 5 or 6 and obviously, Iraq is a unique issue for our times, but these are the issues always at the top and the economy is almost always number 1 and number 2 is rarely close.

Why then do we insist on running people who haven't got a clue about the economy?  Even Obama ran on economic themes.  He was wrong but at least he sounded like he had a substanitative plan.  What was the McCain/Palin message other than.... well what?

92 I want the term "compassionate conservatism" thrown on the Trash Heap Of Bad Ideas.

Agreed. This bullshit began with Bush the Elder's "thousand points of light" crap. Bush the Elder was the person most responsible for our descent into this Big Government morass...Reagan only took him on the 1980 ticket to gain a little party unity, and it has ended up ruining us.

We need to establish that the federal government should not be the locus for advocating social ideas. This is the proper realm of private organizations.

93 d) lack of a conservative candidate in most races.

94

I should clarify my statement. I meant passion as in kicking some ass type of passion. Not lets play nice type of passion.

Yes, I'd say it's way past time for a little kicking.

The RNC's decline began in earnest when the Republicans fed Tom Delay to the wolves.  It's not like I'm a big fan of the guy, but the RNC needed him to stay on track.  They've been floundering ever since.

95

Economy Ethics & corruption National security Education Health care Taxes Iraq Social Security Abortion Immigration

Something else the RNC needs to do is to stop basing their message on the Freaking Polls.  Leaders don't follow trends, they establish them.

96 Why then do we insist on running people who haven't got a clue about the economy?  Even Obama ran on economic themes.  He was wrong but at least he sounded like he had a substanitative plan.  What was the McCain/Palin message other than.... well what?

Jack, we don't need an economist, we just need someone that will say that we are spending much more money than we are bringing in and it has to stop.  We either need to increase revenue or drastically cut spending, just as American families do.  Maybe some of both.  Cut taxes and revenue increases (See JFK, RWR and GWB), cut non essential (National Security) spending....fuck, outline it by item if you want.  That message is a winner.

97

We need to establish that the federal government should not be the locus for advocating social ideas. This is the proper realm of private organizations.

*snicker*  Sorry, enjoying a little recent irony there.

You know, you would think every conservative in this country would know that without being told.  They don't, more's the pity.

98 (b)

But the Republican Party has a good deal of control over their management of theevents that are killing Conservatives. In some cases, they're simply rolling over (i.e. "global warming"), in other cases, they are making the problem even worse (i.e., foreign and immigration policy).

99

B.  I am a conservative Christian, but I wince every time I see us Conservative Republicans trying to supplant Social Liberalism in Government with Social Conservatism.  Either way, it's Government legislated morality.  I hate having schools teaching our kids about sex- I hate the soul-lessness that Government encourages-  we are all just chess pieces to be moved about on the board of Eschatological Immanence.  But I can see that the opposite could be true, too.  The current culture wars between Left & Right will never abate as long as we (both sides) LOOK TO GOVERNMENT for the solution. 

So my position is for  Fiscally Conservative Small Government.  The smaller the better.  The less we rely on Government to do it for us, the more we control our own social, moral, etc life. Politics is Not my hobby.  I despise politics.  However, I am being more active because Leftists have overstepped their cultural bounds and are impairing my freedom.  Just before the election I was quite struck by a video of a young black man rapping a very conservative message to his race.  His message should be heard by everyone. 

Susan Lee

100 And another....conservatives need to clean the shit out of their own nest.  Don't be afraid to confront corruption and speak out against it, especially if it involves a Republican...haul 'em up before the ethics committee, name names and get rid of them.  They're going to destroy any chance of success anyway, why not get in front of the issue?

101 Along the same line that Jack Straw related....Conservatives need to establish an organization that does cost/benefit analysis on every proposed piece of legislation and vigorously debate it.  Most legislation ends up being net negative...let's publish the cost, let's name names...we don't need no fucking congeniality!

102 I don't like the premises of your multiple choice. Can I change perspective slightly?

Unite your friends and divide your enemies. Sure, you bet we'll see more Republican success if we start little wars to kick out the RINOS or the Christers. Yeah, good idea that.

#1: Big Tent good.

What would Reagan do? The Gipper had some ideas that David Brooks would have called an extreme and dangerous--cancerous! No doubt, Peggy Noonan would have nodded when the cocktail party crowd called him an amiable dunce. Yet he was able to articulate Conservative principles in terms that were a lot more grounded than Christoph's daddy.

#2: Don't move yourself left/right to catch the electorate. Move the electorate to your side by articulating your vision. I love you, Sarah.

Can't we just get along? Us Christers happen to care a lot more about abortion than we do about sex, drugs and rock & roll. The gay agenda and the Baptist agenda should be the same thing: leave us alone. Nothing threatening about that to anybody.

#3: Rebuild the Libertarian / Religious Right alliance.

Personal and organizational loyalty is a Good Thing. And loyalty includes personal integrity. Selling out Conservatism for a few good headlines is yet another form of corruption. If you're a congresscritter on the take, or earmarking, or voting for pork, you are manifesting party disloyalty and you should not expect any. Being a "Maverick" is sucky leadership.You can't lead unless you can follow.

#4: Clean our own house and run on Reform.

103

The first group is where Ted Nugent and David Brooks are.

This is the first time in recorded history that Ted and David were mentioned in the same sentence. 

Seriously, if you put the Nuge and Brooks into the same room, Latte Dave would spontaneously combust in fear and class revulsion.

104

Jack, we don't need an economist, we just need someone that will say that we are spending much more money than we are bringing in and it has to stop. 

I didn't say we did.  But we sure as hell need people with more credibility than McCain and Palin.  You had McCain coming out in the primaries saying he didn't have a clue about the economy and then looking paniced during the meltdown with zero message.  Given that he has been in the Senate since dirt was discovered, he was hardly the person to deliver the message of fiscal responsibility and a change of DC's ways.  Palin maybe be a lot better than she showed but any honest assessment said she didn't show much.  Sure the base loved her.  That was it.

We need people who sound credible with a message that resonates with the public.  Reagan was not an economist but he had a strong message that he stuck with and people bought into it.  Again, I don't agree with anything Obama says but it's hard to argue he didn't have a plan that he has been hammering on for better than 2 years.

Something always trumps nothing particulary when times are bad.

105

25% if evangelicals voted for Obama. We lost them. If anyone believes that alienating the 75% that voted Republican is a good idea they are fooling themselves.

Whitman is a Democrat in Republican clothing. We should listen to nothing she says.

It is also foolish to believe that anyone else on the Republican ticket could have beaten Obama.

He had 650 million and the media in his back pocket and a campaign that was determined to make no mistakes and hiding the truth. With the media's help that was easily done.

No one could have beaten this celebrity lovefest. No one.  

 

106 Reading the thread, there's a lot of contributors.

I.e.:

1. The nature of career politicians (many are corrupt, borderline nihilist by nature). Not movement material, particularly a movement aims to displace their power and influence. They're also short-term thinkers, they don't give a damn what happens so long as it keeps them elected, and doesn't explode till after they're gone. (i.e., budget, illegal immigration, etc.)

2. Washington D.C. circle-jerk: Bad culture in which to operate, from the press to social gatherings. Turns even good people bad, without them even realizing that they are changing.

3. The nature of the government bureacracy. Self-protecting and outlasts Administrations. Always lobbies for more power.

4. Probably most important: Shift of the electorate. Even many of the most "Conservative" politicians and pundits today enunciate a program that would have fit in the old Democratic Party. Many are actually even proud of this fact and adopt Democratic politicans for heroes, when the were by and large bastards too.

5. Which accounts for electorate. Incrimentalism and white washing of history's killed us. The media and the schools are the gate-keepers are on this one. Then there's the sheer replacement of the electorate: If you were to limit the vote to the 1963 electorate, the Democrats would lose every election, and both parties would shift massively to the "right." But that's hate speech, thought, or something.

Not much room for optimism, especially on the last one.

107

myiq2xu @ 77: Okay let's consider your examples of "far-right rhetoric".

Bomb Iran,

Maybe we should bomb Iran. Heck Obama wants to bomb Pakistan.  Is that an example of "far-right rhetoric"?  And they already have nukes.  Actually Obama's statements are even worse because Pakistan is an erstwhile ally.  The Republican Party is, and forevermore should be, the party of strong, muscular national defense and if that is "far-right rhetoric" to you then it's hopeless.  But, if you buy into the left-wing caricature of conservatives as bloodthirsty warmongers then I can see how you would consider statements which contemplate military action against a growing threat intent on harming us and our allies to be just more far-right bloodlust.

double gitmo,

Despite all of the left's protestations over Gitmo, there is absolutely zero precedent for taking prisoners of war and trying them in US civilian courts.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  They are subject to military rules.  That was the case in every other war that the US has fought and that is currently the case right now in the WoT.  The left's moral grandstanding over Gitmo (and, to a lesser extent, the torture issue) is just a wedge issue designed to give them more power.  I fault George Bush for not standing up more forcefully and explaining to the public why we have prisoners at Gitmo in the first place.

evolution isn't real,

First, nobody with a brain will make the blanket statement "evolution isn't real".  Microevolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory.  What hasn't been demonstrated is macroevolution.

 nor is global warming,

Again the empirical data does say that the planet is gradually getting warmer (although in the last 10 years the trend has reversed).  The real question is about anthropogenic global warming.  But from my point of view, the real problem here is that the debate has completely left the science laboratories and is now a moral issue.  When you have AGW skeptics compared to Holocaust deniers, you know that science and reason have left the room.  To the extent that global warming is a problem, I would prefer to see action taken that is consistent with the objective scientific realities, and not on hysterical projections derived from flawed climate models.  (By the way, did you know that state-of-the-art climate models cannot correctly predict the effects of clouds?  Don't you think that would be kinda important for climate issues?)  But that train has left the station.  And it's because of the enviro-freaks who have turned this issue into a moral, right-or-wrong, we-must-regulate-carbon-out-of-existence-otherwise-you-are-worse-than-Hitler issue.  So yes I am glad that Republicans (well, most of them anyway) are standing up to this moral grandstanding.  It's not mere "far-right rhetoric" to complain about bad science.

homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice,

I imagine you'd be interested in knowing that modern scientific thought on sexual orientation now suggests that it fluctuates with time, and is heavily influenced by environment and upbringing.  So no homosexuality is not a mere choice but it is not completely immune to choices either.

gay marriage is the biggest issue facing this country,

Complete BS.

deregulate everything,

More BS.  Republicans aren't anarchists.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a Republican that didn't support, say, building code regulations, so that when you walk into a public building you'll be confident that the roof won't fall down.  What we object to is the liberal idea that the market is the enemy, and that government's role must be to punish the market via regulation.

tax cuts for the rich "trickle down" to everyone else,

Republicans consistently and forthrightly support tax cuts for every taxpayer, rich or poor.  It's the Democrats with their "targeted tax cut" nonsense who want to dictate who gets money back and who doesn't.

"you're with us or with the terrorists,"

When it comes to international relations - damn straight.  Pre-9/11 there were lots of states that slyly supported extremists while outwardly lamenting their actions.  We should all worship George W. Bush for making the moral bankruptcy of this position crystal clear.

"libruls hate America"

You know what?  This may come as a surprise to you, but there are some liberals who really do hate America.  It is hard for me to believe that anyone who claims that the Twin Towers were filled with "little Eichmanns" has any great love for this country.

 I didn't say I heard all of that during the campaign, but I've been hearing it.

It sounds like you've been hearing liberal blog caricatures of these things.

108 Whoever said no balls is right.  People will vote for a leader, no matter how flawed that leader is.  Obama looked like a leader and McCain looked like a follower.  It's really that simple at the presidential level.  Congress is a whole other story.

109 We need people who sound credible with a message that resonates with the public.

That statement right there is almost right.  Here's how I think it should read:

We need people who are credible with a message that resonates with the public.


We need people that "walk the walk" and "talk the talk".  We've got a shitpot full of "talkers"....we need some "walkers".

110 But yeah, McCain and Bush sucked too.

But even if McCain had won, what would we have won? Another progressive, big-government Conservative. Not exactly a game-winner, there. The fact we're rooting for such self-defeating, confused schmucks is a symptom as much as a cause of the problems.

111

Rightwingsparkle might have a point, but we didn't have to forego as many opportunities to confront our opponents as McCain did.  His lack of attack against the true source of the financial crisis has allowed the dems to establish "Republican de-regulation and greed" as the de facto answer to the question of who done it?  I am really very bitter about that... I don't know if McCain didn't get it, or his eons in the Senate made him soft.

 

Did I mention that I am really very bitter about that, and would happily never hear his name again?  Promising to fight, and then not fighting, is pure treachery.

112

I think the Republican Party is in trouble for 3 reasons (and perhaps more):

1.  There are significant ideological blocks in the party that put their own candidate / policy(s) first, cannot agree to support the strongest candidate / policy(s), and thus force compromise to low standards.

John McCain is the example. I believe he’s a fine man and a good leader, but his policies were not really what most of the Republican party wanted, and clearly not what most of the American people wanted.

Giuliani and Romney seemed stronger candidates, and Thompson had the gravitas the others were lacking. The fact that Thompson’s been an actor for quite a while is a bit of a problem.

A lot of people supported Huckabee, but it seems clear that those "lot of people" were it; no one else. Huckabee’s religious facet seemed to be the major attraction for them, and it might have repelled everyone else.

Evangelism is a noble thing, but it does not appeal to a large section of the population. Emphasize it and lose; minimize it (to "… therefore honest and trustworthy") and win.

In short, internal partisanship caused a compromise on someone who was not the strongest candidate, had less appeal to the masses, and was therefore less likely to win.

 

2.  The Republican Party takes the bait on certain issues, when their policy should be to support the will of the people.

Homosexual marriage is one of them. Public school curricula is another. Abortion might be one too. A much position would have been to be willing to fight against activist judges, judicial legislation and judicial fiat, thus ensuring that what the American people want is what they get.

 

3.  The Republican Party seems to be content to sit back and let the newspapers and TV define them, the truth of modern events, in sort, everything. This is a losing proposition.

A quick check of the last 20 years of the Dow Jones Industrials (or S&P 500, or …) reveals that the dot com bubble burst in 2000, under Clinton, ending in early 2003 at 8000, under Bush, was followed by a run to 14,000. Oil speculators, and the CRA / sub-prime / Fannie Mae meltdown erased all that.

This is a Democrat-caused problem.

Economic problems seem to have Democrat origins. The newspapers and TV won’t say this. They hang it on the Bush and the Republicans. The truth is otherwise; run the video clips of Frank, Waters, etc.

A number of actors in the Fannie Mae meltdown seem to be not only going scot-free, but being rewarded with positions of authority in the incoming administration.

The newspapers and TV won’t say this. This needs to change

Is ACORN being investigated? Where are the investigative reporters?

It looks like we really have won in Iraq. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al, were wrong. The newspapers and TV won’t say this. They hang it on the Republicans.

There are doubtless other examples.

 

For reasons unclear to me, Bush allowed the newspapers and TV to hang all these things on him and the Republicans. Why?

 

Until the Republican Party starts seriously fighting the propaganda war, it will continue to lose.

113

B. Ignorance. B is the correct answer, and the correct answer is B.

The Republicans could communicate with me better than they do now. I'm on their side, y'know. They can email me with updates, what they're thinking about, what they're looking to do, anything, any reason why they should be the ones to govern. I know they have my email address: I received a solicitation for money every day from mid September to the day before Election Day.

Seriously, the Democrats have communicated to me that the Republicans are to blame for the current financial crisis. The Republicans have communicated to me that they need for me to give them fifty dollars.

 

114

 This is, by the way, the most fundamentally conservative position of the three. It assumes that the Republican Party and its core message are correct and in no need of adjustment/triangulation.

 

That is not a fundamentally conservative position, unless you think that trying to preserve communism in the Soviet Union was a fundamentally conservative thing to do. May you do believe that. But you don't know shit about conservatism if so.

 

I think it's a stretch to say that Immigration is a social conservative issue.

It's hard to imagine any issue which is more directly related to social conservatism. Which leaves me wondering why you feel the need to opine on subjects you know nothing about. You don't see me lecturing you on liberalism, do you?

115

25% if evangelicals voted for Obama. We lost them. If anyone believes that alienating the 75% that voted Republican is a good idea they are fooling themselves.

So the question then, is: HOW did they get alienated?  McCain was the biggest SoCon running except for Huckabee.  Palin is even moreso.  Other far better presidential choices were tossed primarily because of their liberal leanings in the social area.

And it didn't work.  Why not?

116

We need people who are credible with a message that resonates with the public.

We had two of them in the primaries, Rudy and Romney, and we flushed them both.  One guy because he was two liberal and the other guy because he was a liberal Mormon.

This despite the fact that one had taken over NYC when it was declared unmanegable and mired in debt and brought it back from bankruptcy and 9/11 and the other who has a better practical understanding of the economy than anyone who was in the race and both with years of executive experience.

I don't advocate pushing out social cons or their issues but a reordering of priorities might be a good idea.  There's no way either of them would have done worse than McCain in the election and might have actually won.

117

#112: Until the Republican Party starts seriously fighting the propaganda war, it will continue to lose.

In a nustshell, that.

118 "Brand tarnuished"

"Brand discarded"

Brand?  What brand?

That in a nutshell is the problem.

McCain wanted to talk about what he wanted to talk about.

People here and elsewhere wanted to talk about birth certificates, draft cards and rotten people on the other side.

Nobody wanted to talk about the brand or why people should buy it.

No discussion of platform and planks therein.  (I don't think I read or heard those terms at all.)

Did anybody else notice that the poll numbers started to swing when McCain started comparing what he would do wight what Obama was then-currently saying he would do?

And I do think "Joe" and "Tito" are more what the party is about than the free-load-whats-in-for-me UAW  member.

And did you notice?  "abortion didn’t even make the top five:" -- neither did immigration.

But that doesn't mean we need to throw those under to bus.  (And I ask you all to join me in taking a vow not to use that metaphor again.

119 Rightwingsparkle might have a point, but we didn't have to forego as many opportunities to confront our opponents as McCain did.  His lack of attack against the true source of the financial crisis has allowed the dems to establish "Republican de-regulation and greed" as the de facto answer to the question of who done it?  I am really very bitter about that... I don't know if McCain didn't get it, or his eons in the Senate made him soft.

 

Did I mention that I am really very bitter about that, and would happily never hear his name again?  Promising to fight, and then not fighting, is pure treachery.

Posted by: sherlock at November 15, 2008 03:24 PM (ojW85)


Yeah... I have to wonder if McCain was really running for President, or just running to take Kennedy's place as the "Lion of the Senate".

120

Florida and California went blue. . .but they passed some socially conservative ballot props. In other words, the social conservative message played a role, but supporting social conservative issues did not translate to voting for Republicans.

 

Social conservatism seems to be significantly more popular than the Republican Party. I'd say that the lesson to be learned from that is that the party needs to be seen as actually on the side of social conservatives, by social conservatives.

At present the GOP has managed to accomplish the worst of all worlds. It's seen as a So Con party by the people who hate So Cons, and as being dishonest and deceptive by the So Cons themselves.

 

 

121 How about a variation on 1) that is closer to being option 4). The problem is with all parts of the Republican 'coalition'. Not the entirety of any part, but with too large of a percentage of each part.

And, nicely, this problem is exemplified perfectly by Brooks and by Whitman and by Nugent and, especially, by Senator John McCain.

The problem? The burning desire to attack other parts of the coalition more than liberal Democrats.

Until it dawns on these idiots that attacking your own side rather than the other helps the other, then they are a cancer on the Republican/conservative/libertarian side. Plain and simple.

There are times that it makes sense to go after parts that are migrating towards your side of the political aisle. For example, whichever party the Klan has decided best suits them, it makes sense for that party to attack and repel them. But beyond that?

Libertarians are the biggest offenders at this. They were the least likely to ever call themselves Republicans and were among the biggest defectors to, perhaps, the most statist major party political candidate to ever run for President (yes, Megan McArdle, I am looking at you). As long as they think that the GOP is a bigger threat to their ideals, then they are going to be lost to the GOP.

But the fact is, and they will learn this the hard way, they are wrong.

Same with the social conservatives. Rudy Giuliani is a brilliant executive. Here's a secret- it matters much more how well someone governs than what their positions are, and Giuliani was a brilliant Mayor. Further, he was willing to bargain with the other parts of the GOP tent. But, no. The fact that he could turn NYC around mattered little to social conservatives, and they helped bury him for Mike Huckabee, of all people.

And the moderates/social liberals? Well, they've been jerks to the entire coalition all along. Whitman, Specter, Chaffee, the whole lot.

If the GOP wants to win, and to make progress for ALL parts of the tent-- social conservatives, libertarians, country-club Republicans, social-liberals/fiscal-conservatives, then here is the recipe.

I honestly think it is the only one.

1) Start ranking good governance above everything else. If you have a Giuliani but disagree with his positions, you are in the wrong if you turn against him for someone who you have no idea on their ability to govern but like their views better. Plain and simple. Centrists/independents will vote for someone they see as effective. You get someone like this in office, then the entire coalition must back them, enthusiastically. In the long term, it is good for even those positions said candidate does not share.

2) The only reasons to be attacking another GOPer is over corruption, actual bigotry, and/or them attacking GOPers over other things. Period. You can debate and say that this idea is better or that idea is better, but saying "I won't support them" or deciding to support a candidate against them or staying home or, worst of all, voting for the Democrats, is a recipe for most of what you hold dear being lost to people who believe in the opposite of you. That holds true for social conservatives (liberals believe in nearly every other social position). It holds true for libertarians (the Democrats are not the peace party when in power, they are going to be 'tough on crime' drug warriors when in power, and they are going to regulate and tax you into submission). It is true for country clubbers-- they will tax your businesses to death, go after you like the devil incarnate, and try to build up the little guy (unsuccessfully) by tearing you down economically. It is true for the fiscal conservatives. They will spend on all the pork they can to enrich themselves and to buy votes. Fight GOP corruption to your hearts' content, but not any more than you fight Democrat corruption, and refrain from tearing down GOP figures over differences in ideology.

That's it. A two-step recipe.

It works, and nothing else has, and nothing else will.

122

I think it's a stretch to say that Immigration is a social conservative issue.

It's hard to imagine any issue which is more directly related to social conservatism.

Holy CRAP, what sort of Pure Idiot would ever think that stopping immigration law from getting broken is a SOCIALLY conservative position?

Flenser, you are Stupid On A Stick.

123

Put me down for "all of the above". I think they are all tied together anyway. The party needs better communications ability. Hell, it needs to get some communications ability, then it can worry about getting better.

 

Part of that is having candidates who are better at this communications business. McCain was Bush-like in his inarticulateness.

Lastly, the party need's a decent, coherent, popular message to communicate to the public. One reason it does not have that at present is the "big tent" strategy. It's tough for the Tower of Babel to speak with one voice. So we default to running on the "we're not the Democrats" platform, rather than taking actual solid positions which might possibly offend someone, somewhere, who calls himself Republican. Say what you will about the Rats, but they know what their goals are. That makes it a lot easier to work towards them.

We need a party and candidates with the ability to articulate a clear and consistent message to the public. And deliver on it if elected.

 

124

Holy CRAP, what sort of Pure Idiot would ever think that stopping immigration law from getting broken is a SOCIALLY conservative position?

 

Hello, bitchy little girl.

The question was whether "Immigration" was a question which socially conservative people should consider an important issue. The words "legal" and illegal" are not part of the question.

 

Don't be afraid to ask questions. I'm here to help you learn.

 

125 What, we shouldn't blame McCain?

The big loss gives many that very reason and/or excuse.

Come on don't you listen to Rush, Mark or Laura?

It's that old cripple that did us in!

He wasn't even smart enough to not get shot down for chrissakes!

He got what he deserved in the Hanoi Hilton!

-cs™

126

Start ranking good governance above everything else.

 

So if Obama is good at governing, we should support him?  That's a terrible idea.

127

And did you notice?  "abortion didn’t even make the top five:" -- neither did immigration.

 

There's a cause and effect thing there. The reason those things were not high profile issues is at least partly because neither party made a big deal of them. Judges used to be a good issue for us. That's another good issue which McCain choose not to run on. Of course, he could hardly run on immigration, since his party and the public don't like his position.

 

128 @ 79, Jim62sch


Republican Party candidates did not campaign on any of these "ideas" like Bailoutpalooza


Do you think that voters so lack sophistication that they do not associate the actions of the party with the philosophy of the party?

In '90 President Bush collaborated with liberal democrats to pass the largest tax increase in U.S. history, in direct violation of his earlier campaign promise of "No new taxes."  He lost the subsequent election.

Eighteen years later his son, President Bush, collaborated with liberal democrats to create legislation for a $700 billion taxpayer bailout of the financial industry, approved by candidate McCain.  McCain lost the subsequent election.

In each case a betrayal of core Republican ideology contributed to an election disaster.

129

Hello, bitchy little girl.

Hi, my girly little *itch.  I don't think we've talked before, though.

The question was whether "Immigration" was a question which socially conservative people should consider an important issue. The words "legal" and illegal" are not part of the question.

I'm not a tad surprised that you don't GET why legal and illegal are important to conservatives.  It would ruin your silly view of the world to dwell on the facts.

Don't be afraid to ask questions. I'm here to help you learn.

Okay.  How did you get to be such an uneducated, pathetic bag of beetle droppings?  Please explain in 25 words of less because you bore fast.

130

In each case a betrayal of core Republican ideology contributed to an election disaster.

 

And the reason they betrayed it was because they never really believed that ideology in the first place, it was just something they said to get elected. But that gets us back to the debate about "real conservatives". What are they and how do we indentify them?

 

131

I don't think we've talked before, though.

You wound me! I thought  made a better impression last night. Or a more memorable one at least.

I'm not a tad surprised that you don't GET why legal and illegal are important to conservatives. 

Did YOU read MY comments?

132

You wound me! I thought  made a better impression last night. Or a more memorable one at least.

Apparently not.  Don't feel bad, though; my last BM doesn't resonate, either.

Did YOU read MY comments?

Sheesh, do YOU read them?

And where's my answer to this:

How did you get to be such an uneducated, pathetic bag of beetle droppings?  Please explain in 25 words of less because you bore fast.

Remember, you offered to answer questions.

133

#126: So if Obama is good at governing, we should support him?

Yes, actually, we should. It seemed like you were being facetious, but you nailed it. Good government is all we ask. Security, justice, public infrastructure, a stable currency -- that's it. If he gets that right without going overboard on the goodies for his friends, that he'll have proven me wrong and I'll support him.

#126 (continued): That's a terrible idea.

You were so close, flenser.

134 Seems like the modgops had their guy running and he got beat, and without Palin it would have been worse.

135

Bitchy little girl exists for the sole purpose of answering the question "Is it possible to make Chimpy McPhucknuts appear like an intelligent commenter who makes a valuable contribution to the site, nay, to the entire internet"  in the affirimative.

 

136

#126: So if Obama is good at governing, we should support him?

Yes, actually, we should. It seemed like you were being facetious, but you nailed it. Good government is all we ask. Security, justice, public infrastructure, a stable currency -- that's it. If he gets that right without going overboard on the goodies for his friends, that he'll have proven me wrong and I'll support him.

 

Fuck you, dick. Well run socialism is not my cup of tea.

137

Bitchy little girl exists for the sole purpose of answering the question "Is it possible to make Chimpy McPhucknuts appear like an intelligent commenter who makes a valuable contribution to the site, nay, to the entire internet"  in the affirimative.

Is Chimpy McPh*cknuts your other moniker?  Shucks, you give me too much credit.

And still not answering my question after offering to do so?  Liar.

138

Fuck you, dick. Well run socialism is not my cup of tea.

LOL! Chimpy HATES getting nailed!

139 So if Obama is good at governing, we should support him?  That's a terrible idea.

I guess you'll have to say "Fuck you" to me too.  If Obama is good at governing, and by that I mean on the majority of the principles that I hold dear, I will support him.  I am not beholden to any "Party" and I don't give a ruby red rat's ass which party or which candidate produces, I just want production.

Any candidate of any party that produces limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, defends individual liberty and responsibility and promotes Democracy in their foreign policy, has my vote and support.

Of course, that will not happen with Obama unless hell freezes over and the Cubs win the World Series.

140 "So if Obama is good at governing, we should support him?"

Non sequitor. It does not follow from what I said. Further, unless big government liberalism coupled with nanny-statism coupled with confiscatory taxes coupled with redistributionist policy is compatible with quality governance, then the 'if' part of your hypothetical will never come to pass.

However, if it turns out that Obama governs well, and America prospers in the next few years and America's security is ensured and there is a dearth of corruption, then I would say that it doesn't matter if you or me support him-- he'll be re-elected in a landslide. But if all of those things come to pass, and I am confident that they will not, then I think we probably should support him. When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, sir?

But the facts aren't going to change, which makes the whole if-then you positied completely moot.

141

Sitting back, loving the popcorn, and enjoying the show...

142 I think the "is it me or is it you" question has been answered. The problem is flenser and those, regardless of ideology, like flenser.

143

Any candidate of any party that produces limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, defends individual liberty and responsibility and promotes Democracy in their foreign policy, has my vote and support.

That's not what was meant by "good government". The poster who started this wanted "competence". LBJ was very competent. Bill Clinton was good at governing. If thats all we care about then the GOP should disband.

 

 

 

144 Barbelle said: "McCain was the biggest SoCon running except for Huckabee."

Would that be the same John McCain who stuck a finger in the eye of the Religious Right during the 2000 primary season? The fellow who made a point of distancing himself from those values voters who gave the nomination to GWB? I think it was. In fact, I think that most Evangelicals have good memories. And we're likely to think that character matters. If you say I'm pond scum and expect me to forget it 8 years later, you ain't the biggest SoCon out there.

That said, I'm a little concerned about what this word "SoCon" means. Mr. Huckabee, g-d love him, seemed to have a message of "vote for me because I'm a Baptist, too." I love Baptists, I'm a Baptist, that's not a sufficient reason to be President: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were Baptists, too.

Conversely, I think abortion is a civil rights issue and that's why I think it's a proper topic of civil policy debate. And even if you are pro-choice, I'll hope you're pro-democracy enough to want to decide this issue via a democratic process of legislation, not judicial fiat. Fred Thompson did a pretty good job of making a Federalist argument for overturning Roe. I think that letting the 50 several states each legislate the question is much better than a single law passed by Congress or a single Federal Court decision.

I think that Social Conservatism should be more like the last paragraph and less like the identity politics of the paragraph before it. I want to bring like-minded people together while resisting the temptation of the fringes to split us aparat.

145 flenser

Why don't you quote the rest of what I said, you know, include the proverbial if:

If Obama is good at governing, and by that I mean on the majority of the principles that I hold dear, I will support him.  I am not beholden to any "Party" and I don't give a ruby red rat's ass which party or which candidate produces, I just want production.

146

Non sequitor. It does not follow from what I said.

 

Actually, you simple minded little fuck wit, it follows precisely from what you said. Which is why you fellow good good governnce lover answered that he would indeed support Obama. And so did you.

 

However, if it turns out that Obama governs well, and America prospers in the next few years and America's security is ensured and there is a dearth of corruption, then I would say that it doesn't matter if you or me support him-- he'll be re-elected in a landslide. But if all of those things come to pass, and I am confident that they will not, then I think we probably should support him.

 

And yet, it is a "Non sequitor" for me to accuse you of saying the thing you just said. Hmm.

 

But the facts aren't going to change, which makes the whole if-then you positied completely moot

Which facts would those be?

 

147

One thing that I think is a problem with the GOP:

The GOP stopped being the party of ideas.  Our principles are still superior(e.g., limited government, free markets, liberty, freedom, support of conservative social values that stabilize society, strong national security, etc.) but our specific policy ideas are outdated.  For example, when Reagan advocated cutting income taxes and deregulating industries the marginal tax rate was something like 70% and there was tremendous industry regulation.  Free market-pro-growth types need to identify what factors are clogging our economic system today and then figure out how to unleash them for greater economic growth. 

  More generally, I think we need to come up with conservative policies that are relevant for the America we live in today, not the America of 1980 or 1994.  That is, we need to consider factors like our global economic environment, our aging population, our more ethnically diverse population, exploding healthcare costs, the fact that today’s enemy (terrorists) is not limited to a single nation state like in the past (USSR) but is a loose collection of distributed groups throughout the world, etc. Simply saying “cut income taxes” and “give people tax credits” isn’t as effective when the vast majority of Americans have very little income tax burden.  Hell, Obama has co-opted tax cutting and used it to facilitate his demagogic message.

Personally, I’d like the see the GOP come up with policies and spokespeople that really promote entrepreneurship and small business creation.  Don’t assume that this election shows most American’s prefer nanny statism.   (Anecdotally I think I’m right.  But of course, this is an empirical question.) I think it’s more accurate to say a lot of people lost their faith in the GOP in the area of small business.  They see the GOP as the party of big money interests instead of the party of small business people. I think this issue could be a big winner for GOP because the Dems aren’t speaking to these people either.  (The Dems are only offering big government solutions.) We need to win these people back and I think we have an opportunity do it.

 Lastly, even though I’m a secular conservative, I think socially conservative issues are still a winner.  Prop 8 shows that.  I’d prefer to drop the Right to Life amendment and other federal level ideas and see these battles fought at the state level.  Given the fact that many like minded people are self-selecting by moving to different areas of the country, I’d say a state level, social conservatism agenda would be the best approach.  But would such a strategy change completely alienate the social cons and keep them from showing up for Congressional and Presidential elections?  I can't say. Its' a risk.

148

#139: " . . . Obama is good at governing, . . . I will support him.  I am . . . a . . . red . . . ."

Because arguing against this (your own words, mind you) is easier?

149

The point of the "good at governing" routine, from those proposing it, is to advance the prospects of those like Rudy Giulaini. Scan up through the thread to see this.

That is, those who think that politicians like Rudy have so many shortcomings on so many issues that he should not be the GOP nominee are being told to pipe down because he is, after all, good at governing.

I don't care if he is good at governing if he is wrong on a whole slew of issues which are central to conservatism.

150 Because arguing against ... your own words, mind you.. is easier?

I see how that works.  Certainly doesn't change what I said. 

151

To everyone just skimming (or skipping) the longer posts:

Go back and read #121 and #147.

We can quibble over the details, but they're way more right than wrong.

152 Giuliani.
Palin.
Jindal.

Three Republicans. Effective executives. Spend little time attacking other members of the GOP over their differences in ideology. More than willing to attack anyone, regardless of party, over corruption.

The answer is 'all of the above'. We need to support people like them, each and every time. Those who spit at Rudy as being a RINO are every bit the problem that Brooks is with his misplaced disdain for Palin, and are every bit the problem that McCain was in the past with his attacks on conservatives.

153

If you say I'm pond scum and expect me to forget it 8 years later, you ain't the biggest SoCon out there.

And whoever said that McCain is the biggest SoCon out there?  That wouldn't be me.  He was the biggest one in the race, though...with the exception of Huckabee (and there was a couple of small fry without a chance, like Pawlenty).

Regardless...let me see if I understand you.  Are you saying that evangelicals weren't going to vote for McCain because McCain had snubbed them previously?  So, when the GOP went with McCain this time to appease the anti-abortionists and gay marriage opponents, they were wasting their effort?

So, why the heck didn't we get Giuliani in there???

154 "But the facts aren't going to change, which makes the whole if-then you positied completely moot

Which facts would those be?"

Which is it- are you dense through immense effort, or does it come naturally?

Here are some facts. Reaganism worked. Carterism did not. If, somehow, human nature changes and suddenly Carterism works and Reagansim does not, then the rational thing to do would be to change one's opinions over which approach is best.

I don't think that sort of change is going to happen, which is why I am pretty confident that my belief that giving my vote to those who govern well will not lead to me supporting Obama for re-election.

However, if he does govern well, and America prospers and is secure and my family is happy and doing well and the same is true for most Americans, then I will gladly support him. The facts would have changed. The facts would have caused me to re-evaluate what I believe is best.

When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, sir?

155

Flenser, My Girly Little *itch and Newly Proven Liar, is now attempting the Etch-A-Sketch Posting Option of shaking off his previous droolings and trying to re-phrase exactly what he just said in the hopes of no one noticing.

I did!

Where's the answer to my question, anyway?

156 Are you still here, cuntess?

157

So, why the heck didn't we get Giuliani in there???

Health reasons. He was campaigning hard a year ago, then he was in a hospital for a couple of days, and he wasn't the same after that. On the issues, he was the Pro from Dover; physically, however, he wasn't up to the task.

It's like drafting a Heismann-winning quarterback and seeing him kick ass on opening day, watching him plant his feet in the pocket, scrambling when he needs to, completing every pass -- only to watch him get his hand bruised on week 2 and not throw quite right after that, and eventually realizing you have to go with your backup guy.

A flawed analogy, but close enough.

158

Are you still here, c***ess?

Why sure.  Your humiliation entertains.

And I'm still waiting...

159

Which is it- are you dense through immense effort, or does it come naturally?

 

Which is it? Were you dropped on yor head as a child, or do you have fetal alcohol syndrome?

 

Here are some facts. Reaganism worked. Carterism did not. If, somehow, human nature changes and suddenly Carterism works and Reagansim does not, then the rational thing to do would be to change one's opinions over which approach is best.

 

If communism "works", you will support it. I get your argument, I really do. I'm telling you that I don't agree with it.

 

However, if he does govern well, and America prospers and is secure and my family is happy and doing well and the same is true for most Americans, then I will gladly support him.

What can I say to that which has not been said better long ago?

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity."

160 Firehorse, I disagree.  There may have been personal reasons for Giuliani not to have fought, but I think McCain was an inevitability just like Dole was.  And, I think McCain was pushed in because people thought he'd get the religious vote...which is why I want to hear about the reasons he didn't.

161

Your humiliation entertains.

You are having hallucinations again. Try cutting back on the peyote.

 

And I'm still waiting...

What are you still waiting for, cuntess?

 

162

Which is it- are you dense through immense effort, or does it come naturally?

It's kind of a toss up on this one, but I'm leaning towards wilfullness.  I mean, if Chimpy's defects were organic you would think that occasionally he would stumble upon the correct response simply out of statistical probability.

163

So, why the heck didn't we get Giuliani in there???

 

Because we are conservatives, you mindless little hole.

164

You are having hallucinations again. Try cutting back on the peyote.

No really *itch, it's all here.  You mean you're not slurping it up, too?  I would think as easy as you're makng it, you want it to happen.

What are you still waiting for, c***ess?

My ANSWER, Liar.  Here is the question again:

How did you get to be such an uneducated, pathetic bag of beetle droppings?  Please explain in 25 words of less because you bore fast.

165

Because we are conservatives, you mindless little hole.

I am a conservative. You are an insignificant embarrassment.

Still waitin'...

166

It was a while ago, and we'll probably never know all the real reasons why Rudy didn't pursue the prize.

I hate inevitabilities, but you're probably right on both counts. I also hate pushing people in, too. Obama wanted to be president and tried as hard as he could to win. And here we are.

167 you forgot to put in the choices...

D. party being taken over by religious zealotry...

168 oh yes the dreaded religious zealots

169

It was a while ago, and we'll probably never know all the real reasons why Rudy didn't pursue the prize.

Yep, it was weird.  Next election will be in 2 years,so hopefully we can stop some of the pain then.

170 2 points:

1. "Only the last two have anything to do with social conservatism, and they hardly drove the election."

Education is party a SoCon issue.

2. SoCon "issues weren't determinative and there was little reason to waste limited attention and scarce resources pushing them this year."

Which makes the McCain ad about Obama's sex-ed vote all the stupider. The statements in the ad were justifiable, but if it wasn't an important issue, it should have been the leading ad out of the convention. Especially when the McCain campaign had no idea how to reply when Obama (predicably) denied the accusations in the ad.

171

I am a conservative.

 

You are a simpering little twat. Simpering little twats are never conservatives.

 

How did you get to be such an uneducated, pathetic bag of beetle droppings?

 

That term "non sequitur", which Enigmaticore missused above, applies here. So does "mindless little left wing meat puppet".

 

172

Next election will be in 2 years, so hopefully we can stop some of the pain then.

A mental image of those pain charts on hospital walls just flashed into my mind.

Here's hoping the pain doesn't get too bad over the next 2 years.

173

It was a while ago, and we'll probably never know all the real reasons why Rudy didn't pursue the prize.

 

He did not want the media going through his past with a fine tooth comb. You saw what they did to Palin, and she didn't even have any dirt.

174

You are a simpering little twat. Simpering little twats are never conservatives.

Well, that sure goes to show what you know about 2 things you've never seen, My *itch, but you're certainly familiar with simpering first-hand.

That term "non sequitur", which Enigmaticore missused above, applies here. So does "mindless little left wing meat puppet".

Oh Chimpy, while that was less that 25 words -- and congrats for being able to count! -- and you did finally admit to being a mindless little left wing meat puppet -- as if we didn't know! -- that doesn't answer the question at all.  Poor thing, didn't you understand it?

And LOL on the "misSused!"  You're SUCH an idiot!

175

He did not want the media going through his past with a fine tooth comb. You saw what they did to Palin, and she didn't even have any dirt.

*Spit take at MORE of MGLB's breathless stupidity*

Yeah, because Giuliani hasn't been in the limelight for the past 15 years and just has never been investigated.

You do realize you really are an idiot.

176

Only if reading your simpering counts as "first hand".

You claim to be a fiscal conservative, Shouldn't you be getting back to your glory hole? Customers are waiting for you to do what you so well.

177

Only if reading your simpering counts as "first hand".

You mean you don't even know what first hand means?  I knew I shouldn't have assumed you finished middle school!

You claim to be a fiscal conservative, Shouldn't you be getting back to your glory hole?

Ahhh, now you're using phrases you understand.  First hand, too.

Customers are waiting for you to do what you so well.

Yeah, but selling tickets to your performances didn't generate enough revenue.

178

My dear Cuntessa, are you still here? I thought you'd have left for your evening job as a fluffer.

I only came back to see if the non-brainless-twats on the thread had posted anything.

179

I'd say primarily B. Nobody teaches history, and nobody in the press wants to cover issues, as they hurt libs overall.

Secondarily its A. moderates. They decided to sell out conservative principles for expediency. Bush did it to buy support for the war when the libs decided to go all anti-war on his ass. McCain was never a conservative, but the people who pushed him said "winning is more important". Look what it got us.

180 Good lord. This isn't very hard.

You think voting for Giuliani would be akin to eating a shit sandwich?

Just remember, then, that you have no reason to bitch when any other person from the old Reagan coalition votes against your preferred candidate because they think it would be eating a shit sandwich.

Support candidates only who agree with you on everything. Put ideology above competence, above coalition building, and above fighting corruption.

What do you end up with?

President Obama. Speaker Pelosi. Majority Leader Reid.

But at least you aren't eating a shit sandwich.

Right?

I have a better idea. Give me the socially liberal Rudy, the conservative Jindal, the populist Palin, and others like them.

Or, when one of them might advance Republicanism, torpedo them because while you agree with them on some things you want to make sure they get nowhere on what you disagree with them over. Cross your fingers that the same won't happen when the ones you agree with start making headway on things important to you.

181

arbalest was really right about this:

The Republican Party takes the bait on certain issues, when their policy should be to support the will of the people.

This is crucial. The left loves to back us in a corner on social issues. We need to say exactly this. We are against abortion and gay marriage but we want the will of the people and evangelicals and devout Catholics need to accept that. No one is more pro-life than I am, but Obama got elected by "sounding" moderate. We have to do that as well, but what is different about us, is that we mean it. We DO want the will of the people, because 9 times out of ten, they agree with us. 

182 Republicans are losing right now primarily because the public needed to be reminded just how badly the democrats fuck up when handed all the keys to the kingdom.

The Obama win was necessary for this to happen.  Patience.

183

Republicans are losing right now primarily because the public needed to be reminded just how badly the democrats fuck up when handed all the keys to the kingdom.

I agree it was a tough year but we will never know what the outcome might have been had we not run the worst candidate we could have.  McCain got spanked in all 3 debates, refused to run a tough campaign and in fact ran an inept campaign without direction or a message and then picked a wild card for VP and put her in the worst possible light.  The candidate does matter.

184

Interesting article by Jonah Goldberg on the soul of the GOP - do we need social conservatives:

http://tinyurl.com/6d38jq

185 It's "b". Properly explained, conservatism can win elections. We haven't done a good job of that.

186 >Incidentally, I think it's a stretch to say that Immigration is a
>social conservative issue.

Yes, but I'd also say that "education" really encompasses a lot of social issues that Ed ignored in his post.

187 Lots of great ideas and comments, but the ELEPHANT in the room is the
Main Street Media. During the last 6 years it has become Republicans against the MSM / Democrats. This blatantly biased MSM is unprecedented in the history of American politics.

It doesn't matter what the Democrats do or say, they are coddled by the MSM.
It doesn't matter what the Republicans do or say, they are derided, criticized, and negated, no matter what the principle, nor who the person.

Certainly we can talk all night about how this came to be, but at this point it is moot. The Republicans have to figure out how to negate the MSM
Figure that out and conservative Republican principles, espoused by a strong savvy candidate,  will trounce liberal Democrat ideas every day.

(For those interested, Barbelle and flenser are married, and that little dialogue, if you bothered to read it, is what they call foreplay, they will be in the rack for the remainder of the evening in case you were wondering where they disappeared to)LOL

188 d) Incumbent Republicans spending money like drunken sailors.

189 Correct answer (D) - Economic conservatives who are social liberals.  It was this group of conservatives that badmouthed Palin and continue to do so.  It was also this group that tried to reduce enthusiasm for the Republican ticket, thereby depressing Republican voter turnout (hence the reason the expected huge turnout never happened).  It was this group - basically METROSEXUAL SUBURBAN RINOS - who think they are so educated and intelligent that no hicktown bible-toting republican has a gram of brains in there head - well it was this group that destroyed the one Reaganesque candidate that the Republicans had - Huckabee - ......let's just say that the urban republicans are to blame.

190 @102:   Don't move yourself left/right to catch the electorate. Move the electorate to your side by articulating your vision.

Success comes when you know what you stand for and why--
and can explain it convincingly to others.

McCain is a LOUSY explainer. [point (c)]

Republicans do have a few people who can actually explain things--Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney come to mind--IF they're given the platform to do so. There's our problem: the MSM won't give them any exposure. [point (b)] So how do we reach people? I guess the grassroots "boots on the ground" that so many here have mentioned, and at which the Democrats seem to excel.

Incidentally, I'm obviously in a tiny minority at AoSHQ in thinking abortion should be the No. 1 issue. But if we can't even make the case for why the government should not be condoning the dismemberment of little babies right inside their mother's wombs, we might as well just close up shop and go home. This callousness toward young, innocent children has warped, coarsened, degraded and hardened the whole society--which leads to a whole bunch of problems.

I'm pretty sure that if I'd lived 150 years ago, when slavery was such a huge pillar of the economy--and therefore, like abortion now, so integral a part of the lifestyle--that many people could not even imagine banning it, I would have been a "single issue voter." I would not have given a damn how good a candidate's positions were on any other issue if he were in favor of keeping slavery legal. It was a blight on our country and made an absolute mockery of all our talk about liberty and opportunity and inalienable rights and everything else.

The abortion issue is analogous in many ways. As with slavery, the only way this abomination is able to continue is because people refuse to see the victim as a fellow human being.

Educating an uninformed electorate has been a major theme in this thread.... I would say that on the issue of abortion, there are a heck of a lot of Republicans who need educating as well.

191 Oh, and while I adore Sarah Palin--and obviously lots of people do--I haven't seen anything to show me that she can explain things effectively either. Oh, sure, she can explain stuff to people who already agree with her--but what we need, folks, is another Reagan! Have you heard any of his old radio broadcasts? The guy had YEARS of experience with a microphone. He was a voracious reader and prolific writer, he definitely knew what he believed, and why, and got very, very good at explaining it convincingly.

Someone like that is who we need for 2012. Better yet, let's all try to develop ourselves in these areas and work to influence people around us!

192

The answer is:  C.

McCain was a bad candidate.

193 If we're going to have a "coalition" of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives; then wouldn't it be accepted that when one side gets an office that they... oh I don't know... don't completely and totally crap all over what the other side has worked on for years?

Yes Republican Congress and President Bush; I'm looking at your free wheeling pork barrel spending and wondering exactly what the f*** you thought you were doing.  Yes the war was expensive, but the 50% non-war discretionary budget increase was both non-war and discretionary... right?  So, what... the... fuck?

I don't have any issues with a social conservative who also is willing to accept fiscal conservatism and smaller Government as part of the deal.  But spending 8 years with a President who crapped all over the deal and ignored one side of the group?  That is going to ruffle some feathers.

The fiscal conservatives who crapped all over social conservative ideals and f***ed things up for them?  I've not seen many, but they'd be the flip side of this coin presuming that they exist and have had any influence.  But, as I've said; I'm not seeing that having happened either.

Did McCain come across as someone we could trust more than Bush on fiscal conservatism?  Not really. 

Does anyone think the party has even the slightest interest in fiscal conservatism?  Not until they've finished spending 700 billion plus buying up assets and businesses to be owned the by Government using taxpayer funds for this endeavor (and if you think I'm wrong, why does the Fed own 85% of AIG voting stock).  Actually, who votes for AIG leadership right now, or gets to make AIG decisions?  Who owns AIG when they inevitably default on their loan repayment schedule?

The Government buys a business with 85 billion in taxpayer funds, gets another 700 billion for other unnamed (or, named, and since seriously changed) purchases; McCain agrees wholeheartedly with the plan... and fiscal conservatives didn't come enthusiastically in support of McCain?

Color me shocked; shocked I tell you that the fiscal conservatives can't be trusted to fully endorse this coalition.

It's like when Russia turned on Germany in WW2 just over a minor invasion and attempted takeover.  Little things like having your "allies" stab you in the back over and over again sometimes cause issues in a "big tent".

Maybe I'm wrong; in the past 8 years what work of any sort has been done regarding "small government" "fiscal conservatism" or anything even remotely along those lines?

194

It's hands down for #2...the ignorant electorate...and it is for this reason the Conservatives...I can't say Republicans right now... must pick a Great Communicator, one who can explain things in simple terms.

In addition to the abandonment of conservative principles, Bush's lack of charisma and his inability to ever complete a sentence without notes, turned off vast swaths of the electorate, spawning, I believe, the "Not my President" movement, and ultimately the election of Obama. Unfortunately Mac only made matters worse. People simply can't vote for people they don't like.

I really like the remarks of post #34, but we can get nowhere until we have a brilliant messenger, because make no mistake about it, Obama is already running for reelection.

195 balance of shoes nike shoes shoes.com adidas shoes puma shoes womens shoes dress shoes. casual shoes wholesale shoes sport shoes nike shoes shoes boots sandal shoes basketball shoes slippers shoes . replica rolex watches rolex watch replica watches- cartier watches- cartier watches swiss watch automatic watch chronograph watch. mens watch watch com men's watch the watch womens shoes leather shoes dress shoes running shoes . adidas shoes tote bag golf bag plastic bag purses bag briefcase bag steve madden shoes gold watch rockport shoes repairs watches best replica watches youtube watch youtube watch rolex watch rolex watches casio watches watches online timex watches tag watches. nike jordan shoes ladies watch leather bag replica handbag replica handbags wearing fashions clothes jorand shoes . oyster rolex dive watches replica watches- watches for men- timex watches buy watch rolex mens chrono watch elgin watch. automatic watch ladies watch mens watches new shoes steve madden shoes sneakers shoes sneaker shoes jorand shoes . rolex replica belts bag diaper bags travel bag laptop bag shoulder bag wears art glass urban wear fendi bag briefcase bag nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's shoes shoe store nike shoes best replica watches nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's watches cracked- medieval times- cidreq cidreq mens health ukraine 2009 calendar. chopper leipzig madsen donald duck isis king ncaa mens soccer cuny portal croazia . pasolini safari e-buddy espace pub rugby henderson waves jewelry ring wrist watches rolex watches replica watches fine watches casio watches watches online quartz watch. nike shoes ladies watch men's watch nike shoes running shoes Tiffany Bracelet basketball shoes jorand shoes . replica rolex watches rolex watch replica watches- fine watches- rolex datejust rolex mens watch repair oyster rolex watch. air flight ladies watch men's watch rolex submariner running shoes Tiffany Bracelet rolex replica jorand shoes . rolex replica watches rolex replica nike shoes rolex replica rolex replica fake rolex replica rolex replica watches rolex replica rolex replica rolex replica watches rolex replica best replica watches watches diamond watches replica watches rolex watches casio watches watches online timex watches tag watches. nike jordan shoes ladies watch luxury rolex watch nike shoes running shoes Tiffany Bracelet basketball shoes jorand shoes . oyster rolex dive watches replica watches- watches for men- rolex datejust buy watch rolex mens watch repair oyster rolex watch. air flight ladies watch seagull watches rolex submariner running shoes Tiffany Bracelet rolex replica jorand shoes . rolex replica watches rolex replica nike shoes rolex replica rolex replica fake rolex replica rolex replica watches rolex replica rolex replica shoe store nike shoes best replica watches nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's shoes shoe store nike shoes best replica watches nike shoes men shoes fashion shoes women's watches

196 Perfect iPod to PC transfer software helps you transfer between iPod/iPhone and personal computer. The iPod to PC transfer can transfer iPod/iPhone music, video, photos, iPod podcast and TV program to PC. It can transfer iPod to PC, transfer iPod to iTunes, transfer between iPod and iPhone, and among several iPods/iPhones. transfer iPod to PC is versatile iPod transfer software to help you backup Songs & Videos from ipod to computer. The iPod to PC transfer software can efficiently transfer iPod music, photos, video and movies. The iPod transfer software connects your iPod to PC with the ability of transferring all kinds of files from iPod to Computer.The FLV to iPod software is a powerful software which can convert FLV to iPod with hight outputquality either extract audio from FLV to iPod supported audio such as AAC, MP3, WAV or convert FLV to iPod supported video formats such as mp4, m4v, mov, H.264, MPEG4, etc......

197 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

198 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

199 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

200 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

201 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

202 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

203 Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Cartier | Fake Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Movado Watches | Fake Baume & Mercier Watches | Replica Tissot Watches | Replica Hermes Watches | Technomarine Fake Watches | Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Maurice Lacroix Fake | Fake Piaget Watches | Fake Rolex Watches | Fake Panerai

204 Fake Watches | Replica Watches | Fake Watches | Fake Watches | Replica watches | Replica Concord Watches | Chopard Replica Watch | Fake Swiss Chanel Ceramic | Fake Jaeger LeCoultre Watches | Chanel Replica | Replica Swiss Rolex Watch | Swiss Rolex Fake | Fake Richard Mille | Replica Franck Muller Watch | Glashutte Fake Watches

205 Replica watches | Replica Rolex | Replica Cartier | Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Watches | replica watches | Replica Fendi Watches | Cheap Bell & Ross Watches | Corum Replica | Fake Versace | Cheap Piaget Watches | Breitling Replica Watches | Cheap Iwc Fake Watch | Replica Fendi Watches | Fake Movado Watch

206 Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Watches | Replica Omega | Replica Rolex | soccer jersey supplier | Piaget Replica | Replica Vacheron Constantin | A.lange Sohne Replica Watch | Cheap Tudor Fake Watch | Alain Silberstein Fake Watches | Benz Fake Watches | Other Fake Watch | Fake Bell & Ross | Cheap U-boat Watches | watches brand

207 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

208 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

209 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

210 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

211 Fake Watches | Fake Watches | Raymond Weil Watch | Replica Bulgari | Replica Parmigiani Watch | Vacheron Constantin Watch | Cartier Replica | Fake Chopard | Cartier Fake Watches | Replica Rado Watches | Replica Concord Watches | Longines Watches | Fake Blancpain Watches | Fake Audemars Piguet | Replica Breguet Watch | Fake Mont Blanc Watches | Replica Franck Muller Watch | IWC Replica | Rado Replica Watch | TAG Heuer Watches | Fake Bedat & CO Watches | Mont Blanc Replica | Swiss Replica Watch | Replica Emporio Armani | Rolex Replica | Replica Gucci Watches | Oris Watch

212 Piaget Replica Watches | Watches Bedat & CO Fashion | IWC Replica Watches | Replica Longines Watches | Movado Fake Watches | Watches Daniel Roth Fashion | Watches Gucci Fashion | Replica Rolex Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica TAG Heuer Watches | Replica Juicy Couture Watches | IWC Fake Watches | Replica Swiss Watches | Watches Corum Fashion | Watches Audemars Piguet Fashion | Gucci Belt Replica Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Swiss Army Watches | Watches Bulgari Fashion | Watches Rado Fashion

213 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

214

Swiss replica watches Now while replica watches you can buy a good digital replica watches and pocket watch you might need to see what features are present on your new purchase. This is important as you should know and understand the quickest way to set any of the watch brands. You will also need to familiarize yourself with how to know when you will need to change the batteries on your digital watch.The key to finding your perfect watch is mainly replica watches keeping your options open. There are flea markets where you should be able to find replica watch stalls. You can see if you will come across any great antique watch brands in auction houses. These places will sometimes have fantastic looking antique pocket watches that will grace the hand of any owner.These facts may seem to be quite daunting but if you have ever owned a watch of any kind then you will replica watches know that you just how replica watches easy wristwatch these devices can make your life. The many different styles and features that you can find on an average watch will make choosing the right watch brands an exciting experience.

215 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

216 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.