Erickson To GOP Donors: If You Look Around The Table And Don't See The Sucker, It's You

Erick Erickson has a great piece over at RedState today that's a must read for anyone interested in fixing the broken machine that is the GOP.

When consultants told rich donors who were funding them that they were not making money off the Super PAC’s that the rich idiots . . . er . . . donors funded, they were being honest. They probably were not.

But ad heavy Super PACs outsourced the ad buys, the mail, the data collection, etc. to other groups that got commissions and you can be sure that a lot of these supposedly noble consultants working for free were making a killing off of commissions, referral fees, etc. through their relationships with the commissioned vendors doing the actual work. ...

...

Just as important as making money for these guys was control over the data. In fact, in singular importance this campaign season has been the buzz word “data.” But what the hell is that data and why is it so important?

Read the whole thing for a great exposition into how to spend millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it.

And just to be clear, the issues Erickson points out and the digging into the Orca debacle we've done here at the HQ shouldn't be confused as an identification of the reason we lost the election.

There were a host of reasons, beginning with the candidate.

But we need to take this defeat apart like the NTSB does a plane crash and identify every failed component that could have led to the disaster. And just like with most crash investigations, I suspect we'll find that it wasn't a single failure but a chain of failures, many identifiable years earlier, that led to the result.

Posted by: Andy at 10:52 AM



Comments

1 Free Shit. Race. Major, uncontested fraud.

The rest is trivia....

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 27, 2012 10:55 AM (yKUrR)

2 Foist?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 27, 2012 10:56 AM (lOmbq)

3 It would be easier to figure out what worked well.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 27, 2012 10:56 AM (J4gw3)

4 "There were a host of reasons, beginning with the candidate."

May I recommend Ann Coulter's column concerning this. She compares Romney with Reagan to debunk the "bad candidate" meme.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (ZDsRL)

5 Erickson sucks!

[Some off-topic thing from Hillaryis44.org, whatever that is - Andy]

Posted by: gonzotx at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (4CQjf)

6 Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach consult.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (SY2Kh)

7 Shazbot!

Anyway, ...fixing the broken machine that is the GOP.

Fuck them, too. LiFB.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (lOmbq)

8 Sory, above from Hillaryis44.org

Posted by: gonzotx at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (4CQjf)

9 The GOP is a hopeless pile of junk.

It can not be fixed.

Posted by: eman at November 27, 2012 10:58 AM (bWwMZ)

10 I pretty much gave up on RedState quite a while ago, but I will click it to make you happy.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 10:58 AM (QupBk)

11 We let teh JEF's un-regulated credit card donation scheme go unchallenged.

Posted by: rickb223 Let It Burn at November 27, 2012 10:58 AM (GFM2b)

12 If you don't have motivated fanatics, er, I mean, "supporters" to do the leg work there's a serious problem. It doesn't take much to activate the fanatics in any political persuasion. Mostly you just have to avoid kicking them in the balls ever time they help you and every time you win.

Oh, wait...

Posted by: runninrebel at November 27, 2012 10:58 AM (J4gw3)

13 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 10:59 AM (5DR1j)

14 "5 Erickson sucks! "

You'll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that statement, but on this one slim issue, he is correct.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 10:59 AM (ZDsRL)

15 "There were a host of reasons, beginning with the candidate."

May I recommend Ann Coulter's column concerning this. She compares Romney with Reagan to debunk the "bad candidate" meme.
Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (ZDsRL)

And yet, Mitt lost.

Ann can't accept that Mitt failed.

Posted by: eman at November 27, 2012 11:00 AM (bWwMZ)

16 Sory, above from Hillaryis44.org

Don't be sorry. Just knock that shit off.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 11:00 AM (SY2Kh)

17 And @5 is why I have my own blog. Or, rather, would. If I did.

Some things are just too long to be comments.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:01 AM (5DR1j)

18 But we need to take this defeat apart like the NTSB does a plane crash and identify every failed component that could have led to the disaster.

---

Yup.


I think Ace's three thoughts were premature in a way, particularly referring to bad talk by our pundits (he used Rush as a specific example).

We need to decide if our current RNC leadership is serving us well. We need to address our primary system. And we need to decide as a party what our core values are and what measures our candidates need to take to "prove" their adherence to them. Things like the platform and special interest groups pledges and the like.

I am NOT advocating tossing away any of our traidtional ideological principles, but many are and we need to discuss it. What's on the table and what's not on the table? Also, we can't be reactive. Obama won't be running again, so in deciding on pandering issues or issues to toss out, we shouldn't do it assuming 2008/2012 conditions.

I don't think we're quite ready for that philosophical discussion yet - and we're CERTAINLY not equipped to start touting candidates. We should be focusing on the mechanical failures of this campaign, including the senate campaigns that we should have won (I'd toss out IN and MO b/c of their special circumstances).


And now, a sleeping puppy:

https://twitter.com/moxiemom/status/273454486352166912

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:01 AM (5H6zj)

19 @10
I pretty much gave up on RedState quite a while ago, but I will click it to make you happy.
_____
Ditto.

Posted by: MotherGoos3 at November 27, 2012 11:01 AM (Km6fn)

20 how to spend millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it.

---

It's the new normal.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 27, 2012 11:02 AM (Dbie0)

21 "17 And @5 is why I have my own blog"

You've got a blog?

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:02 AM (ZDsRL)

22 Some things are just too long to be comments.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:01 AM (5DR1j)

Unless someone asks specifically for info, I don't write short stories in the comments. I certainly don't read them. I know, my loss.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:03 AM (3Y7RV)

23 >> You'll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that statement, but on this one slim issue, he is correct.

Exactly.

Posted by: Andy at November 27, 2012 11:03 AM (C/NnJ)

24 Erick Erickson though is a first rate Douche, I don't think I'd be taking much advice from him on anything regarding winning elections.

He seems to be more about promoting himself as some sort of kingmaker, except the fact his track record is laughable. The whole election he was pouting that Perry got beat.

I don't doubt money was sucked up by consultants, that happens every election. The problem was, Obama got to outspent Romney by about 2 to 1 because Romney has a long, nasty primary that almost went to the Convention. If anything, Obama's campaign REALLY got fleeced considering how many less votes he got this time around.


Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:03 AM (o90Z3)

25 Chris Matthews: Conservatives Want to End Minority Vote
/Breitbart


Funny, given that conservatives are evidently the Minority.


Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 11:05 AM (BAnPT)

26 And that thing at 5 is about to get gone. Don't fucking do that.

If you must go with off-topic bullshit, at least be selective in your excerpt and link the rest.

Posted by: Andy at November 27, 2012 11:05 AM (C/NnJ)

27 We let teh JEF's un-regulated credit card donation scheme go unchallenged.

Posted by: rickb223 Let It Burn


They let a shitload of things go unchallenged because Obama is a person of color. Why do you think Chrissy Matthews was on that topic like stink on shit? It fucking worked. The Romney campaign was scared of turning off the oh-so-sensitive lady vote.

I think things will change when it's Honkey v Cracker.

Posted by: Dang at November 27, 2012 11:06 AM (R18D0)

28 how to spend millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it.

That's like the old joke, "How do you make a millions dollars playing the blues? Start with two million."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 27, 2012 11:06 AM (lOmbq)

29 Chris Matthews: Conservatives Want to End Minority Vote

Would if I could you gin soaked POS, would if I could.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:06 AM (3Y7RV)

30 You cannot defeat my lord and savior! Give it up crackers! Top rail now on bottom, haters.

Posted by: Jamie Foxx at November 27, 2012 11:07 AM (wIgpo)

31 4 "There were a host of reasons, beginning with the candidate."

May I recommend Ann Coulter's column concerning this. She compares Romney with Reagan to debunk the "bad candidate" meme.
Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (ZDsRL)

The trees here are the perfect height.

[Ambushed by clearly far left media moderator.
*Stares in disbelief*]

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at November 27, 2012 11:07 AM (vGtOG)

32 The problem was, Obama got to outspent Romney by about 2 to 1 because Romney has a long, nasty primary that almost went to the Convention.
------

Right. It was Rick Perry's fault. And Newt's fault. And Santorum's fault.

The problem with the primary was that Mitt did not learn from the criticisms, he merely crushed the opponents. The one play he made on substance/policy was to go Extreme Conservative on immigration. And we see how that turned out.

I think Mitt ran a much better campaign than McCain did and his choice of Ryan was a great one. That said, just as in 2008, we played right into the Dems' hands. In 08 we ran an old albino against Virile Young Black Man. In 12 we ran a multi-millionaire businessman from a very privileged background after years of Class Warfare. Mitt should have addressed that stuff earlier, including during the primary, but he chose not to.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:08 AM (5H6zj)

33 May I recommend Ann Coulter's column concerning this. She compares Romney with Reagan to debunk the "bad candidate" meme.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (ZDsRL)

Before she drank the Mitt Kool-Aid, Coulter said if we ran Romney we'd lose. She should have quit while she was ahead.

As for anyone who thinks Romney and Reagan are even remotely comparable as candidates, I'd note one of them won 2 presidential elections in huge landslides and the other lost to one of the worst Presidents in American history.





Posted by: DrewM. at November 27, 2012 11:09 AM (MbMSS)

34 "The trees here are the perfect height. "

Mitt wasn't my first choice, but I have to admit we would be very lucky in the future to have candidates who make so few mistakes.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:09 AM (ZDsRL)

35 Non-Lib Romney haters were going to be Romney haters whether he won or not.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at November 27, 2012 11:10 AM (INyZp)

36 Obama lost millions of votes compared to his total in 2008, yet he won.

A smart and powerful GOP could have destroyed Obama, but they failed.

Why?

They failed because the GOP is weak and stupid and corrupt.

The GOP Machine cranks out weak shit and the Democrat Machine mows it down.

If you want to defeat the Democrats you first have to replace the GOP with something new and something better.

Don't waste too much time and energy on it though. Events are heading our way that will make all this talk irrelevant.

Posted by: eman at November 27, 2012 11:10 AM (bWwMZ)

37 Mitt should have addressed that stuff earlier, including during the primary, but he chose not to.
Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:08 AM (5H6zj)


Mitt never had a shot. Back in the recesses of our minds we all knew that. He was the one the Media wanted. We hoped in one hand and shit in the other. In the end, all we got was a smelly hand.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:11 AM (3Y7RV)

38 Before she drank the Mitt Kool-Aid, Coulter said if we ran Romney we'd lose. She should have quit while she was ahead.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 27, 2012 11:09 AM (MbMSS)

Ann Coulter has baby fever.

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at November 27, 2012 11:11 AM (vGtOG)

39 We need to decide if our current RNC leadership is serving us well.
We need to address our primary system. And we need to decide as a party
what our core values are and what measures our candidates need to take
to "prove" their adherence to them. Things like the platform and special
interest groups pledges and the like.


I'm not sure there's anything to "decide" regarding our current RNC leadership's service. Reince Preibus isn't bad, but RNC Leadership has been craptastic for a while.

On the rest, I agree with you. The primary system has to be reformed. Particularly, states that aren't going to vote R in the general (unless there's a landslide anyway) should have much less say in who the nominee is. Imagine if the primaries had started in Texas and then hit (for instance) the Carolinas, Oklahoma, and other Red States.

Our platform needs to be concise, and based on principles.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:11 AM (5DR1j)

40 The question is moot.

Posted by: mayan calendar at November 27, 2012 11:11 AM (QupBk)

41 5. gonzotx

Granted, I cut to the chase: 17 22.

"The only difference between Mubarak and Morsi we see is that Morsi is an Islamic extremist."

As if THAT were an "only". Exactly what research did you ever conduct beyond media propaganda sourcing regarding Mubarak? How much of the 20th Century Egyptian recent history do you know? After all you wrote, given your summation, you write more than you read.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 11:11 AM (BAnPT)

42 It's is important to remember how much Obama spent, and how many fewer votes he got this time around.

We can nuke the GOP, nuke the leadership, reschedule the primaries, pick better candidates, promise free shit....

And if this is the electorate that's making the decisions (informed by the DNC and its propoganda arm known to many as the 'MSM'), we're simply and plainly fucked.

Ad infinitem.

No amount of vigorous introspection will change this simple fact. Fucked. It's not a Republican problem, so Republicans can't fix it...they can only fight each other, call each other names, splinter into smaller less effective groups, and QQ.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 11:11 AM (hNXHo)

43 it's not kool aid, it's flavor aid.....jeez.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 27, 2012 11:12 AM (GVxQo)

44 I'm the sucker....

of course it's not like had I the 6500 back I'd be spending it on rations and ammo...

oh wait.

Posted by: Harlekwin15 at November 27, 2012 11:12 AM (LRFds)

45 Yeah, if we just made it easy for a candidate in the primary we'd totally win. Which candidate? We'll, the most electable candidate, of course. The candidate who appeals to the broadest segment of groups by using language devoid of scariness. The cleanest candidate who will be immune to character attacks. The candidate who has a war chest to fund ads on TeeVee.

And around we go...

Posted by: runninrebel at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (J4gw3)

46 I think the first thing we have to do -- or, I should say, the GOP establishment has to do - is stop apologizing for being the GOP. Enough is enough with that. Until the GOP leadership can stand up and say unapologetically, "This is who I am, this is what I stand for, and no, I'm not sorry for it, call me a racist all you want," then we're going to keep losing no matter WHAT we fix. Until you know you're starting point, you can't find the finish line.

First, know thyself. Then, know your message. Stay firm in those two things and let them guide how to handle the tangible and intangible mechanisms of a political party and a campaign.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (4df7R)

47 35 Non-Lib Romney haters were going to be Romney haters whether he won or not.
---
And people all-in for Mitt are going to blame everyone but Mitt no matter what.

What's your point? Was I not enthusiastic enough when I donated to Romney? Did I not fill in my ballot with enough enthusiasm? Is THAT why he lost?

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (5H6zj)

48
Don't waste too much time and energy on it though. Events are heading our way that will make all this talk irrelevant.





Posted by: eman at November 27, 2012 11:10 AM (bWwMZ)


This, many times over.


My own $0.02 - remember always that nothing in this life is secure or permanent. Don't worry too much about failing institutions like the GOP, or bad candidates, or even the Army of Freebies. Put your trust in the Living God, because that is the only trust that is unfailing.

'cause seriously, this place is gonna become a madhouse soon.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (FVUmk)

49

More ragtime.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 27, 2012 11:14 AM (x0cB9)

50 Mitt wasn't my first choice, but I have to admit we would be very lucky in the future to have candidates who make so few mistakes.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:09 AM (ZDsRL)

If you are not making mistakes, then you are not taking the chances required to win or are covering things up. This is politics, not a course at Harvard.

Obama makes mistakes left, right, and all over. I'll take a mistake prone victor over your weird obsession of mistake "avoidance" any day.

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at November 27, 2012 11:14 AM (vGtOG)

51 First, know thyself. Then, know your message. Stay
firm in those two things and let them guide how to handle the tangible
and intangible mechanisms of a political party and a campaign.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (4df7R)

First, it would help to HAVE a message.

Posted by: Hrothgar - L.I.B or SMOD (for the Children) at November 27, 2012 11:14 AM (Cnqmv)

52 What's your point? Was I not enthusiastic enough when I donated to Romney? Did I not fill in my ballot with enough enthusiasm? Is THAT why he lost?

+1.


Winter is coming, friends. Stockpile wood.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 11:14 AM (QupBk)

53 >>Posted by: Oldsailors Poet

Yes, he's the one they had in mind when they constructed their campaign.

I think he *could* have won, but only if he addressed some of the Class Warfare and women's issues stuff head-on.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:14 AM (5H6zj)

54 Reagan won people over to conservatism. Romney wore blue jeans.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 27, 2012 11:15 AM (71iUa)

55 Occupy Tahrir Square.

Posted by: Butters at November 27, 2012 11:15 AM (NIZHJ)

56 Reagan started a national conversation about what kind of civilization we wanted. Romney had good hair.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 27, 2012 11:16 AM (71iUa)

57 May I recommend Ann Coulter's column concerning this. She compares Romney with Reagan to debunk the "bad candidate" meme.Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 10:57 AM (ZDsRL)Difference between Reagan and Romney is that Reagan made a case against statism while Romney avoided the topic and assured everyone he was only going to tax the rich.Besides, who cares what Coulter says she's about one step up from Weiner Nation.

Posted by: Andrea Michell, NBC News, Wwwwwashington at November 27, 2012 11:16 AM (xXhWA)

58 Yeah, if we just made it easy for a candidate in the primary we'd
totally win. Which candidate? We'll, the most electable candidate, of
course.


Nobody said anything about "easy." But why are states that are trending Blue making the initial "cut" decisions on who is in the primaries? Even if you don't start in Texas- because it's got so many delegates- you could start in Oklahoma, the Carolinas, and then move to bigger Red States. Leave the blue states to go in the middle.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:16 AM (5DR1j)

59 Just curious; has the perfect candidate been born yet?

Someone, you know, we won't say after losing was the WRONG candidate?

Because I am a bit tired of all the little girl, whiny bitching from people like Erick and you that we need the perfect candidate. Yet that candidate doesn't exist. Unless we dig up Reagan's corpse and try some ventriloquism.

It seems Democrats have done a pretty good job of putting up a guy who is a terrible candidate, worse president and still get him reelected.

No- I think it's time to stop pulling your own dick and look in the mirror.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:16 AM (GGCsk)

60 Romney only blamed the takers and Obama for buying them. Who are these everyone that you say Romney supporters are blaming?

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at November 27, 2012 11:17 AM (G58bp)

61 'cause seriously, this place is gonna become a madhouse soon.

One would think so the way things are going but you would't know that by all the stories in the media. Complete trash. Consumer confidence up highest in 4 years, biggest black Friday sales evahh etc. It's gonna really have to be in the shitter before obamas accomplises in the media notice...

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 27, 2012 11:17 AM (9+ccr)

62 What's your point? Was I not enthusiastic enough
when I donated to Romney? Did I not fill in my ballot with enough
enthusiasm? Is THAT why he lost?

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (5H6zj)


Aye, it probably is his/her point, and it's galling.


I think there are certain individuals among us who surrender to the cult of personality thing every four years, and so when we lose, rather than examine the matter rationally, it is because of 'hate'.

If they sound like Leftists, it's honestly because they are behaving as Leftists. >.> We as conservatives do not have idols - or should not. All politicians should be seen as necessary evils in our eyes, afforded precious little trust, watched carefully, and their feet held to the fire on conservative principles. Never in a hundred years should a conservative idolize a politician - yet we do regularly.

It'd be amusing, if it were not so bloody irritating. ._.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:17 AM (FVUmk)

63 The problems lie not in the campaigns. They lie in the minds of the voters.

Or, whatever's left of their minds after the school system, Hollyweird, and the MFM get through with them. We (meaning traditional Americans who believe in the Constitution as it was originally written, the rule of law, freedom and individuality, and a small, inexpensive and unobtrusive government) have been defeated culturally.

There is no way to counter that type of warfare. As we've witnessed in the past two election cycles, LIV just need to be kept that way. They are told what to think by the MFM, and they'll never question anything thanks to the school system, which actively robs them of their critical thinking skills on purpose.

LiFB.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 27, 2012 11:18 AM (lOmbq)

64 "He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion."

Stormfront quote?

Nope, direct from Pravda.

One can't fight that level of cognitive disconnect between the electorate and reality.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 11:18 AM (hNXHo)

65 Who are these everyone that you say Romney supporters are blaming?

SoCons, Purists, TeaPartiers

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 11:18 AM (QupBk)

66 Reagan would not have beaten Carter in 1976.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:19 AM (m2CN7)

67 Republicans have been doing a lot of soul-searching (read: "navel-gazing") about what went wrong and what we should do now. As Andy suggests, a lot of the analyses have as their subtexts continuing the gravy train for consultants and insiders and vendors who feed off the multi-billion dollar industry that is politics today. So we talk about data-mining and ORCA and fine-tuning our appeals to different demographic groups and modifying our imagery. It's all about tactics and strategy, the fields where so-called elites and experts and consultants live and breed. Tactics are important. Strategy is important. Data is important. But more important than these is... what are we fighting for? Why should we care? What kind of world do we want to live in? What does America mean?

The Republicans need a new approach, sure. But the approach they need isn't a matter of more and more sophisticated GOTV efforts or more targeted appeals or more moderate rhetoric. The approach they need is simple:

Tell the Truth.

Do the Right Thing.

On every issue.

From now on.

If the truth and doing what is right don't win, then we're doomed anyway.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at November 27, 2012 11:19 AM (qHCyt)

68

"Right. It was Rick Perry's fault. And Newt's fault. And Santorum's fault.
"

I didn't blame these figures, I blame more the process. The way delegates were allocated made it stretch out way too long in a crowded field.

Regarding Mitt's competition though, I blame Republican primary voters that actually thought clowns like Newt or Santorum were viable candidates. Romney wasn't my first choice, but it became abundantly clear that the other options were joke candidates.

Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:19 AM (o90Z3)

69 >>SoCons, Purists, TeaPartiers

and other primary candidates.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:19 AM (5H6zj)

70 Unravel #4: Egypt - Why Won't Obama Demand Morsi Resign?
Update: It’s going to get worse: France to vote for UN recognition for Palestine. Appeasement never works, it only encourages and drives extremists. This is another demonstration of Obama weakness and the unraveling of American power and prestige as the West cannot even feign unity of purpose in a region which only respects strength. We’ll soon be another step closer to war, regional and possibly worse.

———————————————————————

We’re slowly and with great deliberation arrived post 2012 election, after unravel 1, 2, and 3, at unravel #4. And it’s still November.

January 2011 it was obvious to all but the Hopium Guzzlers what would happen in Egypt and Egypt is game over:

“The boobery from Obama has been ceaseless. From the first Obama pandered to Arabs and Muslims and snubbed Israel. Obama thought that if he strapped on a ukulele and sang “Tip Toe Through The Tulips With Me” the gangs governments of the Middle East would sing along. But these governments have interests and strategies that will not be swayed by Obama’s flood of words, backed up by more words and yet more words. Weakness is not respected in the Middle East and Barack Obama is weak and foolish. [snip]

Posted by: gonzotx at November 27, 2012 11:19 AM (4CQjf)

71 I had a hard time the evening of Nov 6. There was not a lot of shown support of Barry in Colorado and a lot more Mitt signs and bumper stickers than usual. So how come Barry won? Well in spite of more Mitt than McCain votes even in Denver and Boulder counties the Dems found more than enough new votes for Barry vs 08 to win.

A lot of takers voted for Barry, but they did so quietly in shame rather than with the Hope of '08. Also I suspect early voting in heavy Dem areas was great for cheating. All it would take is not enough GOP observers and a dedicated volunteer 'voting on behalf' of people on the rolls with a history of not turning up. And this assumes that there is even a system that audits the rolls to see if the # of checked off voters matched the # of votes.

I think that if the GOP, tea party, whomever cares about fraud should just say that the Dem stooges are correct that we should not have photo id to vote. We should have one day voting with indelible ink and only solid paper mailed in absentee ballots for those who can't get to the polls on the first tuesday of November.

Posted by: Palerider at November 27, 2012 11:19 AM (cQZV0)

72 Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 11:18 AM (QupBk

Not true.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:20 AM (m2CN7)

73 I mean it was a fucking normal primary. There were winners and losers. A bit long perhaps, but nothing unusual.

Should we maybe try Thunderdome next time to pick our candidate?

Maybe then you can try a different excuse when he loses. I dunno like he secretly poisoned the opposition to win or something.

Really. Think about what comes out of that hole in your face.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:20 AM (GGCsk)

74 What's your point? Was I not enthusiastic enough when I donated to Romney? Did I not fill in my ballot with enough enthusiasm? Is THAT why he lost?
Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:13 AM (5H6zj)


Exactly.

I was watching a NatGeo special on Nixons CIA Director Colby. After Nixon resigned they showed the pack of neocons sitting around ford. The same backroom dealers that pull the levers today.

Until the party is purged of the establishment we can keep expecting losers on parade. It's already happening at the local levels but it will take time. Time we may not have.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:20 AM (3Y7RV)

75 I actually think that one of commenters made the best point on the Erickson piece. Only 25% of the populous voted. Can we figure out a way to get some of those that didn't to turn out for us next time?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 11:21 AM (QupBk)

76 "Obama makes mistakes left, right, and all over. I'll take a mistake prone victor over your weird obsession of mistake "avoidance" any day."

As Vito Corleone said, "Women, children and democratscan afford to be careless, but not men (or republicans).

They can make mistakes. We can't.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:21 AM (ZDsRL)

77 >>>Posted by: McAdam

Everyone with sense knew that Romney had serious weaknesses and flaws. Searching the less knowns for a better option before settling on losing with Romney was the logical course of action.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 27, 2012 11:21 AM (0q2P7)

78 I think the first thing we have to do -- or, I should say, the GOP
establishment has to do - is stop apologizing for being the GOP.


The GOP has never apologized for being the GOP. They constantly apologize for their base being conservative, because the GOP "Establishment" (which is to say- the Party machinery and leaders) aren't conservative. They're not about conservative vs. liberal, they're about Republicans vs. Democrats. And that's a very different dynamic.

So the important thing for the grass roots is to shake up the GOP Establishment by voting in conservatives. Almost as important as voting in conservatives is voting out incumbents, even if they're conservative.

Jeb Henserling, for instance, is very conservative. He's been a conservative rock. He's also been too much a part of the losing team that is the current GOP Establishment for too long. As much as I admire him and his positions, I know people with his positions are a dime a dozen in his district. So he needs to be primaried and removed.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:21 AM (5DR1j)

79
I'm sick of fucking hearing it. Every asshole has the answer after the election. All these fuckers have a financial motive in churning out this crap because they earn their living doing so. Shuddap, already!

Posted by: Walkers! at November 27, 2012 11:22 AM (TYO2p)

80 Can we figure out a way to get some of those that didn't to turn out for us next time?

This notion of "next time" seems very optimistic.

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 11:22 AM (yE98L)

81 Romney wasn't my first choice, but it became abundantly clear that the other options were joke candidates.
----
Then Romney should have dispatched them more quickly.

Maybe we're seeing why he's only won one election in his life.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:23 AM (5H6zj)

82 Not true.

??? My SoCon-ishness has been blamed repeatedly on this site, at least for the first week. Now I admit that I mostly ignored it so I didn't note whether it was regulars or some of our new trolls, *cough*hector*cough*.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 11:23 AM (QupBk)

83 Burn the media to the ground.

For a start.

Posted by: Zsasz at November 27, 2012 11:23 AM (RDP+N)

84
As for anyone who thinks Romney and Reagan are
even remotely comparable as candidates, I'd note one of them won 2
presidential elections in huge landslides and the other lost to one of
the worst Presidents in American history.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 27, 2012 11:09 AM (MbMSS)Romney got the same percentage of the white vote that Reagan did. Reagan would have lost this year too.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 27, 2012 11:23 AM (E8Ag4)

85 64 One can't fight that level of cognitive disconnect between the electorate and reality.

One can. It's just that it gets real messy and requires a lot of body bags.

Posted by: rickb223 Let It Burn at November 27, 2012 11:23 AM (GFM2b)

86 Read the whole thing for a great exposition into how to spend millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it.

Millions? With an "m"?

*snort*

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at November 27, 2012 11:24 AM (FITsd)

87
One would think so the way things are going but
you would't know that by all the stories in the media. Complete trash.
Consumer confidence up highest in 4 years, biggest black Friday sales
evahh etc. It's gonna really have to be in the shitter before obamas
accomplises in the media notice...


Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 27, 2012 11:17 AM (9+ccr)


Indeed. Yesterday's news thread had a similar vein of thought, wherein a lady was asking for advice on how to deal with some lib relatives they are meeting today for lunch and things. The general thought was to avoid politics, because mentioning how bad things were, and how we are basically resigned to it now, would elicit nothing but thinly-veiled laughter.

That's where we are at now. Our idiotic electorate accepts these self-gratifying news stories without any real critical thought, shake their head, and laugh when anyone says how the invincible USA could come to an existential crisis over something as mundane as debt, not realizing that human beings are the same no matter where they live, and that we have the same failings as those in Europe, Africa, or Asia.

When the dark times come - and they are coming - they will be stricken with fear, and will not understand how it came to be, or why we are suffering so badly. That will be the Rorschach moment, and though it sounds pretentious, I think a lot of us will be enjoying the chaos to some small degree, because this is the bed the country has made for itself, and the idiots who laughed and spent and thumbed their noses at responsibility and justice are going to have to pay the piper.

The only galling thing about it is that they're taking us down along with them. -.-

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:24 AM (FVUmk)

88 IMHO R/R lost largely because a sizable number on the right decided L.I.B BEFORE the election.

Posted by: esch, spawn of draft-dodging pot-smoking hippies at November 27, 2012 11:24 AM (9XVgh)

89 There was mass voter fraud for God sake's!

Posted by: gonzotx at November 27, 2012 11:24 AM (4CQjf)

90

Day 21 of The Repeat of the Most Pointless Argument Ever

Posted by: soothsayer at November 27, 2012 11:25 AM (x0cB9)

91 Perfect example of why I don't donate to politicians.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 27, 2012 11:25 AM (UK9cE)

92 OT : Moon base

Back during the Republican primary Newt's proposal for a moon base was savaged in the mainstream media and a variety of entertainment shows. Following the election this month, NASA released new plans for a moon base. The media and entertainment industry reaction? Not so much.

Posted by: RioBravo at November 27, 2012 11:25 AM (eEfYn)

93 My SoCon-ishness has been blamed repeatedly on this site, at least for the first week.
----
Yep. Ace and other co-bloggers tossed pro-lifers out of the tent within a week.

And by pro-lifers, I mean real pro-lifers, not people who decide on the humanity of a fetus based on how s/he was conceived.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:26 AM (5H6zj)

94 It's a new America- clown.

People obviously don't care about fiscal responsibility. They care about "what's in it for me"?

That includes Republicans and others who didn't bother to show up for the election.

That's a more plausible reason for our loss than this other navel-gazing, psychic friends network shit.

Gee- why didn't Republican's show up to vote in such a crucial election?

Well, I don't know Clem- because they were not motivated on their own parochial issues to do so?

But it was the consultants...and the candidate.

It was the fucking platform that didn't appeal to enough people dumbass.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:26 AM (GGCsk)

95 Day 21 of The Repeat of the Most Pointless Argument Ever

Meh. It's better than discussing the Slow Newsday Gorn.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 27, 2012 11:26 AM (QupBk)

96 Re: Looking around the table:
We The People:
It has become common place if your not at the meeting your on the menu.

Posted by: Clemenza at November 27, 2012 11:29 AM (Q8Pu5)

97 Romney got the same percentage of the white vote that Reagan did. Reagan would have lost this year too.

I absolutely despise this line of reasoning. It is completely flawed.

1) It assumes the electorate would have been the same size as it was. I admit, I don't really remember the Reagan years, but my guess is that a Reagan would have had increased voter turnout, not decreased, from 2008.

2) It assumes that Reagan still would have gotten the same percentage of the White vote. He probably wouldn't have. Whether he would have gotten more or less is an open question, but I doubt it would have been the same.

3) It assumes that Reagan would have gotten the same percentage of the vote from minority groups that Romney did. We have no proof that this would be the case, either.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:29 AM (5DR1j)

98 I figure if we line Pennsylvania Avenue with crucified consultants, their hanging corpses will help us win next time for sure.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:29 AM (GGCsk)

99 83
Burn the media to the ground.


Old speeches and video of JFK and FDR should be diligently mined for quotes that might be taken by the media as coming from a Republican and incorporated by republicans udring interviews.

Being fundamentally lazy, the media will do no research and reflexively attack the remark...at which time the person being interviewed reveals it as coming from FDR or JFK after sufficient attacks were launched.

It won't work on shows that are preproduced and edited, but this kind of trap would work fine in a lot of formats.

The media likes to spring traps, spring some traps on them.

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 11:29 AM (yE98L)

100 Romney supporters didn't blame your soconishness. I'm a socon. What was discussed was the stupidity of statements made by Senate candidates which arguably hurt the top of the ticket. I disagreed with that since Romney still won the State he was expected to win.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:30 AM (m2CN7)

101 "As for anyone who thinks Romney and Reagan are even remotely comparable
as candidates, I'd note one of them won 2 presidential elections in huge
landslides and the other lost to one of the worst Presidents in
American history."

Beware of facile comparisons of incommensurables.

Reagan ran and won twice in a profoundly different America.

What changed? Demographics. If America had had, in 2012, the demographics of 1980 or 1984, Mitt Romney would be President today.

Not in a Reagan landslide, but he would have won comfortably.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 27, 2012 11:30 AM (ymG7s)

102 83 Burn the media to the ground.

We need a lot more people like Newt was in the primary and Sununu was during the election.

Go after the media hard. Make them so afraid that you are going to make them look stupid that they back off and think twice before piling on.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:30 AM (ZDsRL)

103 What was discussed was the stupidity of statements made by Senate candidates which arguably hurt the top of the ticket. I disagreed with that since Romney still won the State he was expected to win.
Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:30 AM (m2CN7)

Agreed, that was devistating, more than most care to think about.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:31 AM (3Y7RV)

104 The GOP doesn't even bother with the disaffected vote, they just keep squabbling over the remaining vote, which is comprised more and more of takers, parasites, and progressives in both parties.


Posted by: runninrebel at November 27, 2012 11:31 AM (J4gw3)

105
People obviously don't care about fiscal responsibility. They care about "what's in it for me"?

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:26 AM (GGCsk)

I dont think so. I don't buy the "voting for free stuff" thing. They vote by ideology. They don't care what this country looks like in 10 years, they haven't even considered it. All they know is that "equality" sounds like an ideology worth voting for.

Add in the typical conspiracies about being ruled by the "wealthy class", War on Women, and the "racism" of their opponents and they were plenty motivated to vote commie.

Posted by: the lone lemon at November 27, 2012 11:32 AM (xXhWA)

106 My thoughts keep coming back to the 32 governors. We can do it at the local and state level. We know that people from blue states are relocating to successful red states - why? If they understand tax burdens, bankrupt cities, lower crime rates etc., locally, why don't they understand the entire country faces the same threats? There is a disconnect here that I don't begin to understand, but perhaps is a key element?

Posted by: Pentangle at November 27, 2012 11:32 AM (ITrpq)

107 Well, the guy I feel sorry for is Adelson. He really put his money where his mouth was and even donated to Romney after the odious Sununu threatened his business dealings, and now the poor guy is out millions of dollars AND facing an emboldened Obama administration.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:32 AM (5H6zj)

108 The single component of failure in this crash was the fact that all of our enemies control the means of communication with the American People.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:33 AM (bb5+k)

109 >>>91 Perfect example of why I don't donate to politicians. Posted by: © Sponge

Here's another reason: you get robo calls for the rest of your life. I'm receiving on average 4-6 a day.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 27, 2012 11:33 AM (TYO2p)

110 I absolutely despise this line of reasoning. It is completely flawed.

Reagan would indeed have lost had Carter run a campaign like Obama's. That was the first election I ever voted in.

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 11:33 AM (yE98L)

111 The media likes to spring traps, spring some traps on them.

This isn't a slam on your idea, but it presupposes a working knowledge of American history on the part of the Average American Voter. It would indeed be fun to watch the MFM tie themselves in rhetorical knots, but they're not any smarter than the AAV.

Just better brainwashed.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 27, 2012 11:34 AM (lOmbq)

112 @102 Yeah Newt had baggage, but still the biggest brain on the hill.

Posted by: Clemenza at November 27, 2012 11:34 AM (Q8Pu5)

113 103 What was discussed was the stupidity of statements made by Senate candidates which arguably hurt the top of the ticket. I disagreed with that since Romney still won the State he was expected to win.
Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:30 AM (m2CN7)

Agreed, that was devistating, more than most care to think about.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:31 AM (3Y7RV)


Whoops, I misread you post. I disagree. I saw the rape posters with the pictures of senate candidates and sitting senators plastered on facebook. Those were viral amongst young women.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:34 AM (3Y7RV)

114 The first thing we must realize is that it is not what we do or do not believe, but our message. The Dems didn't start out demanding gay marriage or partial birth abortions for pre-teens paid for by the Catholic church, they moved incrementally towards it.

Fixing the mess we are in includes many steps:

1st. Adopt the Sharon Statement (with only minor moidification) as the platform and then include only those small incremental steps we can sell to the populace. Sharon statement: http://www2.fiu.edu/~yaf/sharon.html

2nd. Have operations, data mining, &c. done by people who do that type of thing in their non-political day job.

3rd. Do what Sen. Heller did that led him to become the only GOPer to win a Senate seat in a state that Obama won: Define the opponent early and often. Above all, ATTACK at all times.

4th. The "vision thing": People won't simply vote against the other guy, you need to give them a reason to vote for your candidate. Our candidates need to present a simple a clear vision that can be state succinctly, and then refer all questions back to that vision (e.g. Harding's "Return to Normalcy" or Reagan's "City on a Hill").

5th. Above all else, start playing the "long game" and start changing the culture back: http://tinyurl.com/ay2vaup

Posted by: The Political Hat at November 27, 2012 11:34 AM (sZTYJ)

115
"...it wasn't a single failure but a chain of failures, many identifiable years earlier, that led to the result."
Bingo.
I would also add that the right neds to re-examine it's assumptions vis-a-vis freedom and liberty vs collectivism. Many of the issues the right promotes have damn all to do with freedom and liberty. i.e. the conservative stance wrt ideological 'purity' is collectivism at its worst.
Time to rework the foundations of your political philosophy, folks. It's not really working out for ya.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 27, 2012 11:35 AM (WwR1j)

116 73
I mean it was a fucking normal primary. There were winners and losers. A bit long perhaps, but nothing unusual.

No it wasn't a normal primary.

Had Santorum not quit (because he knew he was going to lose his home state) the way the delegates were allocated proportionally made it very likely there would have been a floor fight at the Convention since no one had an actual majority (despite the fact Romney had far more delagates and million of more votes)

What was completely irresponsible was people like Santorum and Newt knew it was impossible for them to actually get more delegates than Romney, but when on anyway hoping to either steal it at the Convention, make Romney put them on the ticket, or simply kamikaze the ticket because they didn't win and it was a form of sour grapes. They actively talked about this when asked why they were staying in despite it being mathematically impossible for them to win.

Am I blaming it all on the primary? No, but the GOP has to understand that Romney spending hundreds of millions putting away "bipolar" Newt Gingrich who was on a book tour and Rick "birth control" Santorum probably cost us a point or two in the General Election.

Every candidate on Earth is flawed, yes Romney was not perfect, but Obama is the most deeply flawed candidate I've ever seen in my life, yet he still won twice. Enough with conservatives blaming it all on not fielding "Superman"

Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:35 AM (o90Z3)

117
Go after the media hard. Make them so afraid that you are going to make them look stupid that they back off and think twice before piling on.

I think you'll have to do this well before the election starts. It will take years of dilution of their propaganda machine to even start to level the playing field.

Frankly, I think Operation PipeWrench is overdue.

I'd love to have someone dig through Chris Matthews' trash.

Posted by: Zsasz at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (RDP+N)

118 1 Free Shit. Race. Major, uncontested fraud.

The rest is trivia....
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 27, 2012 10:55 AM (yKUrR)



Run the figures, all day long. Construct new models to cross reference and predict outcomes. Sit around a table and harumph, harumph, harumph all you want.....

This. is. the. truth.

I would heavily weight the last point, BTW. We are being overrun by Generation Freebie and the "old white man" is the new Jew.

Seig Hiel ....to our lord and savior.

.
.

fucker....

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (GgupS)

119 Agreed, that was devistating, more than most care to think about.
---
Akin was a disaster and set the tone for Mourdock's comments, which really weren't comparable, to be taken as Extreme Extremism. But the funny thing is that when Akin stepped on his dick, a lot of the usual suspects in the GOP were telling GOP voters to stay the course and stick with Akin instead of applying every conceivable pressure to push him out.

Some people are constitutionally inclined to compromise and declare "not the hill to die on."

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (5H6zj)

120 Newsflash; Reagan is dead. If you miss him that much- visit his grave.

We don't need Reagan today. We need someone who can talk to a majority of today's Americans.

If you haven't noticed- this ain't the same 70's-80's America.

I am a little sick of "ooh gee, if we'd only have a candidate who expressed Reaganite principles".

Yeah, if we only did we would be beaten twice as bad.

You think this electorate or the idiots that sat home care about that?

Bullshit


Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (GGCsk)

121 They vote by ideology. They don't care what this country looks like in 10 years, they haven't even considered it.


Errr... wait, what? They vote by ideology but they don't care what the country will look like in 10 years? How are these not mutually exclusive statements?

No, they don't vote by ideology. They vote by what sounds good at the moment. Some of them (like "ObamaPho" lady) are voting for naked selfishness. Others are voting for "fairness." But both are voting for the Government to "do something."

And that's what we need to combat. If it is the Government's responsibility to "do something," then the Government must control all of the wealth in the nation (or it won't always be able to "do something"). Only if the Government's responsibility is specifically not to "do something," can we limit the government, and therefore what it takes from us.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (5DR1j)

122 I pretty much gave up on RedState quite a while ago, but I will click it to make you happy.

Posted by:toby928 at November 27, 2012 10:58 AM (QupBk)

I have always resented the acceptance by our side of the "Red" color as a symbol of our ideology. This was done in 1992 for the purpose of distancing Clinton from the obvious connections to the Communists associated with his protesting of the Vietnam War. Painting the Democrats as "Red" was just too obvious, so the Media people flipped the symbology to add confusion.
That Erick Erickson would embrace their characterization of us and amplify it was the first reason I had to dislike him and his website.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (bb5+k)

123 All they know is that "equality" sounds like an ideology worth voting for.

The 20 or so identifiable Democrat grievance groups aren't interested in equality in the slightest. Each one was itself to be favored over all others.

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (yE98L)

124 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:29 AM (5DR1j)

As I said upthread, Reagan definitely would not have beaten Carter in 1976 no matter what message Reagan had or what his personality was. The electorate at times does not look beyond the meme of the day. Same happened in 2012, the meme out weighed any truth of the situation we are in. The takers and low information voters blame Republicans for our situation. We could not overcome that meme with the way the mass media is established today.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (m2CN7)

125 The single component of failure in this crash was the fact that all of our enemies control the means of communication with the American People.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:33 AM (bb5+k)
----------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Reagan had a hostile media/entertainment/education culture and won in spite of it. The only conservative press at the time was National Review and maybe the WSJ Editorial page. There is now a much more robust alternate conservative press and talk radio. The conservative message doesn't lack for outlets.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (jucos)

126 "Our platform needs to be concise, and based on principles."

My point all along, have the platform on first principles, government limited to being the Constitutional Republic. LOW TAXES, LOWER SPENDING. It worked within 18 months after WWI, given that Wilson was no longer at the helm. Nonetheless, Wilson's economic trajectory owns the Dollar, manipulated by the Federal Reserve which being its own autonomous financial conglomerate of power, has NO ALLEGIANCE to anything beyond its own abusive powers.

But then, rather than accepting that, Republicans prefer neoconservatism which functions through authoritarianism. As if the DHS and Patriot Act are going to "save" Americans from ourselves. And those crazy constitutional conservative libertarians, including tinfoil hat Reagan with his tribute. Heaven forbid that Americans reclaim our own industry, our own lives and constitutional governance. No, leave Eisenhower's warning in the grave and accept assimilation; resistance is futile.

Our taxes fund the most obscene global developments and events, not simply wars for CORPORATIST global empire (which they could/should sponsor themselves rather than at the US taxpayer expense), but the development of the rest of the world at our own demise. Even our military is not really being used to defend the US Constitution and the citizenry taxpayers. Rather, to clear the way for global corporatists that have NO ALLEGIANCE to the USA let alone the US Constitution. But Money Talks. And every politician is owned not by his taxpayer citizenry constituents, but by the lobbyists. Exceptions are scarce.

Here's an observation from Jerry Doyle:
We Can’t Get the Lights On in New Jersey But Last July, Jerry Saw How the US is Building An Entire Infrastructure in Myanmar. In the next few weeks you’ll be hearing a lot about Myanmar as President Obama is planning a visit. Jerry calls the trip a ribbon cutting ceremony to announce that Myanmar is “open for business”.

/...and the nation building for corporate profiteers is always sold to the funding US Taxpayers as "compassion" -- even the never-ending wars are for "democracy" y'know, suicidal rules of engagement and all. pfft

The GOP is no longer a constitutional conservative party. Conservative Republicans VOTE for conservatism time and again, only to be thwarted in Washington by the nation's Republican Leadership.

I'm not playing football with Lucy.


Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (BAnPT)

127 I don't really care anymore why we lost. We lost, and all will pay the price for the few that decided the contest.

Already, we see Jeb Bush making moves....thrilling, eh? Santorum sez he's open to another run.....be still, my throbbing heart (make that headache). Oh yeah, Newt has tossed his hat into the ring too already.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? I may be sitting home in 2016, the first time I haven't voted since I turned 18.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (ccXZP)

128 Four attempts to post and no luck. Fuck this place.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 27, 2012 11:37 AM (1Y+hH)

129
The left controls the media. And alternative media only gets out the message to wonks. And even conservative alternative media isn't that great. Rare have I ever found comprehensive rebuttals with citations to the left's stinking points that we could easily find and use.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 27, 2012 11:37 AM (TYO2p)

130 This election was lost because of fraud, lies, religion and a lack of response from the GOP.

Fraud is obvious. Too much to mention and why there has been no investigations called, I'll never know.

Romney nor the GOP responded to ANY of the lies that were pumped out there by the Obama campaign and it cost them dearly.

Religion has no place in politics, really. We got fucked by the dumbshits talking about rape and their wild-eyed interpretation of God's will. Asking for guidance and all that in your private life is fine, along with going to church and a healthy fear of God. JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

Anyone from this day forward that says anything like what went on in this election should be taken in the back and pummeled mafia style. The next news conference shows them with black eyes and bandages.

STOP BEING DUMB FUCKS and WIN some elections, assholes. I really don't want this country to SUCK going forward.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 27, 2012 11:37 AM (UK9cE)

131 The Dems are the Party of the State. If the GOP isn't the Party of the Individual then it is nothing but a hanger-on.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 27, 2012 11:37 AM (J4gw3)

132 >Had Santorum not quit<

Save me. Santorum couldn't win a pie eating contest.

He couldn't even win in his home state. You think he had national appeal?

That's a joke- right?

He lost. Get over it.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:38 AM (GGCsk)

133 >>We need to decide if our current RNC leadership is serving us well

Because of you sir, I will be laughing at work, at inappropriate times, all. day. long.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 27, 2012 11:38 AM (epxV4)

134 Whoops, I misread you post. I disagree. I saw the
rape posters with the pictures of senate candidates and sitting senators
plastered on facebook. Those were viral amongst young women.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 27, 2012 11:34 AM (3Y7RV)

But who asked them these questions and then fanned the flames? I personally think the Senators would have had less trouble had they simply cold cocked anyone who asked them such a question.

The Media people are our enemy.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:39 AM (bb5+k)

135 19 @10
I pretty much gave up on RedState quite a while ago, but I will click it to make you happy.
_____
Ditto.

Posted by: MotherGoos3 at November 27, 2012 11:01 AM (Km6fn)


Long ago.

.

Reagan would not have beaten Carter in 1976.

I agree. Country needed an in-your-face-example of utter fail plus the Watergate fallout, which was palpable.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 11:39 AM (GgupS)

136
Errr... wait, what? They vote by ideology but they don't care what the country will look like in 10 years? How are these not mutually exclusive statements? Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (5DR1j)

Because equality has nothing to do with prosperity, in fact all evidence shows that they are somewhat exclusive, and yet they choose equality over prosperity.

As Thatcher says, they'd rather the poor be poorer so that the rich would be poorer as well.

They don't give a damn about consequences. Their idelogy doesn't cover that.

Posted by: the lone lemon at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (xXhWA)

137 We need to decide if our current RNC leadership is serving us well

Cliff Notes answer: No.

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (yE98L)

138 Enough with conservatives blaming it all on not fielding "Superman"
----
We are saying that Romney had readily identifiable weaknesses, including being ill-suited to run against the Dem narrative of class warfare (and war on women) but also having very limited success in politics and being from a region he would not win. He didn't combat those effectively. Obama's campaign was predictable. Romney needed to start hammering on those things before the general.

And it is a bit rich to act like Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and even Rick Santorum were not valid candidates. They've accomplished at least as much for the GOP as Mitt ever did.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (5H6zj)

139 >>>Romney got the same percentage of the white vote that Reagan did. Reagan would have lost this year too.

Wow way to make a totally made up proclamation based on electorate bodies that are 3 decades removed. Assuming that the fundamental leanings of all groups has simply not shifted an inch since 1980, and that Reagan wouldn't have the wherewithal to modify his campaign for a different electorate body. Really just a whole bunch of really unjustifiable assumptions so that you don't have to question the ability of Romney to get votes. Way to spin a cocoon dude.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (0q2P7)

140 >>>The electorate at times does not look beyond the meme of the day.

I agree. However, Reagan did have the fact that the country was going to hell under Carter, much like it is going to hell today under Obama. Yet, the asshole won. I do believe the donks will be out come 2016. I BELIEVE.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (TYO2p)

141
Am I blaming it all on the primary? No, but the
GOP has to understand that Romney spending hundreds of millions putting
away "bipolar" Newt Gingrich who was on a book tour and Rick "birth
control" Santorum probably cost us a point or two in the General
Election.

Every candidate on Earth is flawed, yes Romney was not
perfect, but Obama is the most deeply flawed candidate I've ever seen in
my life, yet he still won twice. Enough with conservatives blaming it
all on not fielding "Superman"


Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:35 AM (o90Z3)


Hundreds of millions before the primary.

Uh-huh.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (FVUmk)

142 Priebus is in waaaay over his head.

He needs to go before we have a chance to win.

We heard all about his home state organizing. And we got trounced.

But it was the candidate and the inept hiring of consultants or something.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:41 AM (GGCsk)

143 Amendment: I meant convention, not primary, in my above post.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:41 AM (FVUmk)

144 >>>Already, we see Jeb Bush making moves....thrilling, eh? Santorum sez he's open to another run.....be still, my throbbing heart (make that headache). Oh yeah, Newt has tossed his hat into the ring too already.

And we're already writing off Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal as RINO sellouts.

Because that's how we win; destroy all the opposition for petty reasons, then get stuck with Christie.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at November 27, 2012 11:42 AM (HjJbK)

145 5th. Above all else, start playing the "long game" and start changing the culture back: http://tinyurl.com/ay2vaup

Posted by:The Political Hat. at November 27, 2012 11:34 AM (sZTYJ)

Something that I think a lot of people fail to understand is this: Our principles are not just subjective preferences. They are the embodiment of natural laws, and nature enforces them.


When we fail to get our principles across so as to change people's minds and behavior, Nature will come along afterwards and punish/destroy those people who could not be reached. The Culture will change itself, but I suspect only after a decimation has reminded it why it is wrong.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:42 AM (bb5+k)

146
It finally dawned on me why LIB is unacceptable--it is saying "I quit on my country" in my eyes.

Can't bring myself to do that.

So the effort will continue, at a level where I CAN make a difference--locally. Has to start there, anyway, so why not.

You may laugh, dismiss, or whatever, just call me Eddie Willers,if you wish. But there it is.

Posted by: irongrampa at November 27, 2012 11:42 AM (SAMxH)

147 Reagan had a hostile media/entertainment/education culture and won in spite of it.
------
Yep.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:43 AM (5H6zj)

148 Begin a War on Low-Info Voters.

Step one: Go over the fiscal cliff and let all those non-rich start paying more taxes. They're 'low-info' because the don't pay anything.

Posted by: Zsasz at November 27, 2012 11:43 AM (RDP+N)

149 Reagan won people over to conservatism. Romney wore blue jeans.

No, he didn't for the most part. Reagan won people over to Reagan.

Personalities and candidates matter.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 11:43 AM (SY2Kh)

150 Remember when Ann Coulter said if we nominate Romney that Obama will be reelected?

She was right.

We need someone with principles who can communicate those principles powerfully. Romney had that latter part, but not the former.

Posted by: Dustin at November 27, 2012 11:43 AM (D9999)

151 114:

Exactly. Look at the Heller win. How was that possible in a state "lost" to Romney???

AllenG: I agree with your comment completely. People who say Reagan would have lost as well have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

Romney was the best out of a bad lot of candidates. And he was a gazillionaire Mormon from New England. Not exactly our base.

Until we can face those facts, there is no fucking hope for us in 2016. We need middle class Americans to preach the American dream.

End of story.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:43 AM (tVTLU)

152 the conservative stance wrt ideological 'purity' is collectivism at its worst.
Time to rework the foundations of your political philosophy, folks. It's not really working out for ya.


Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 27, 2012 11:35 AM (WwR1j)

Slavery was a moral issue. Should we have accepted people with differing opinions?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:44 AM (bb5+k)

153 Even if he's correct, I find Eric Ericson to be a preening, pompous , arrogant ass. He views himself as a gatekeeper (like Jarles Chohnson) for some GOP approved line. He's not a RINO, but he is a CINO.

He has a show that pre-empts Hannity for an hour here in Atlanta and he's accomplished the impossible: he makes me say "bring Hannity back on."

Simply put, he insists upon himself.

Posted by: Minuteman at November 27, 2012 11:44 AM (qs9G3)

154 It was Colonel Mustard's fault we lost.

I saw him in the kitchen with a candlestick holder, a consultant, a book on Reagan, a pamphlet on abortion, a book on math, a signed copy of Keynes underwear and naked pictures of Julia.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:44 AM (GGCsk)

155 I'm going to go out on what may end up being a very small limb here, given Christie's actions over the past month, and say that, no matter what reason there may be, if the GOP nominates Chris Christie for 2016, I am not voting for him.




This isn't even a Let It Burn thing. This is just common sense. >.> Chris Christie is not a conservative. He won't get my vote. I don't care if the country is literally on fire, no dice.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:44 AM (FVUmk)

156 It's important that the RNC hire and use people to "fix" things, just as The Wolf did in Pulp Fiction.

When we have a senate candidate say something incredibly stupid, instead of apologizing we need to conflate, obscure and turn the situation around.

"Of course we need to consider legitimate rape. As Americans, we can't leave legitimate rape in the closet, as our liberal friends would like to do. But I will not sit here and listen as you insult our veterans and the United States of America. Good Day, Sir!"

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:44 AM (ZDsRL)

157 Something that I think a lot of people fail to understand is this: Our principles are not just subjective preferences. They are the embodiment of natural laws, and nature enforces them.


When we fail to get our principles across so as to change people's minds and behavior, Nature will come along afterwards and punish/destroy those people who could not be reached. The Culture will change itself, but I suspect only after a decimation has reminded it why it is wrong.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:42 AM (bb5+k)


This.

However, the long game, long march, back through education has to happen or this will all repeat.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 11:45 AM (GgupS)

158 I do believe the donks will be out come 2016. I BELIEVE.
Posted by: Walkers! at November 27, 2012 11:40 AM (TYO2p)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Just in time for the GOP to be at the helm when the ship of state collides with reality. Who do you think will be blamed for the collapse?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 27, 2012 11:45 AM (jucos)

159 Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:35 AM (o90Z3)

You forget Team Romney stole Virginia through rule manipulation. Don't let the pot call the kettle "black."

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:45 AM (bb5+k)

160 We heard all about his home state organizing. And we got trounced.

But it was the candidate and the inept hiring of consultants or something.

--

It's my understanding that the nominee gets to decide these things. Mitt decided to try an untested GOTV that failed. It's not realistic to think the RNC would run a parallel GOTV effort, draining volunteer resources from the POTUS candidate.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:46 AM (5H6zj)

161 Yes, it's true we need to conduct an in-depth analysis: what worked, what didn't and why, and then learn from our mistakes, identify our strengths, and adapt and change accordingly. However, the weaknesses we've identified so far, such as unyielding adherence to the 'it's the economy' messagerather than quickly adapting and countering (successful) Democratic attacks that defined Romney as a capitalist cartoon are tactical considerations. The primary cause of the 2012 GOP defeat lies at the top, with the strategic decisions made by the candidate and his inner circle.

Romney is, by nature, cautious, deliberate,and reserved. He is also modest and unassuming. He considers himself a gentleman. He is not the type of man willing to go off-plan once that plan has been established. It was this--this!--inability to adapt and respond quickly to a rapidly changing current of events--this rigidity--that ultimately sank his campaign. Romney's plan, for example, didn't include Hurricane Sandy a week before the election. Therefore, we didn't see Romney's face for days. Why? Because Sandy wasn't part of the plan. There was no contingency for it.

We can't blame Mitt Romney for who he is. Nor can we blame consultants for being greedy bastards. What we can do is dispense with the top-down approach in terms of organization. If top-down doesn't work in government, why would we think it would work in a campaign organization?

Nominate an unabashedly conservative candidate. Fire up the base. Do a full-court press in all 57 states rather than focusing on swing states, and go for every vote out there. And finally and at last, call the Democrats out for what they are: socialist weasels pretending to be traditional Democrats who arepromoting a socialist agenda. Take the initiative and force them to defend. For once, paraphrasing Grant, don't worry about what they're going to do and let them worry about what we're going to do.

Posted by: troyriser at November 27, 2012 11:46 AM (vtiE6)

162 @ 144 maybe a weird Pandemic is in order that only affects liberal minds. That said, just give all the arm chair quarter back Republicans a cure for their lethargic existence. Reagan and Elvis have left the Republic, long live the fighters...

Posted by: Clemenza at November 27, 2012 11:46 AM (Q8Pu5)

163 Frankly, I think Operation PipeWrench is overdue.



I'd love to have someone dig through Chris Matthews' trash.

Posted by: Zsasz at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (RDP+N)

They need to fear us. This is exactly the right tactic. Hurt them. Hurt them again. Keep hurting them till they are too afraid to fuck with us.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (bb5+k)

164 And no fucking Jeb Bush, is that even a question? Anyone who thinks this guy should lead the country please load the pistol, suck the barrel and pull the fucking trigger already.

We need another faux conservative??

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (tVTLU)

165

noodles

Posted by: soothsayer at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (x0cB9)

166
I still think the biggest problem is a stupid electorate. Either stupid or astonishingly self-centered and selfish. I refuse to turn on Mitt.

I'm with irongrampa. It's up to each of us to try to educate people as to who or what they are voting for.

Posted by: Marmo at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (QW+AD)

167 "But we need to take this defeat apart like the NTSB does a plane crash
and identify every failed component that could have led to the disaster."

Remember that we have less than two years to do the failure analysis and come up with a recovery plan. And if we are able to do that, taking the Senate away in 2014 is a real possibility.

The Democrats are playing defense that year and the economy is going to be dire. If we can pull off a Senate flip, that stomps on the brakes of the Obama agenda for his last two years in office.

Note that 2012 was very much like 2008. Black voters turned out overwhelmingly to support the black candidate at the top of the ballot. These voters also overwhelmingly vote straight-ticket Democratic. This had many decisive effects in downticket races.

Note that 2014 will be very much like 2010. The black candidate wasn't on the ballot in 2010. Black voters were far less active in turning out. The result was a GOP sweep. The black candidate also won't be on the ballot in 2014.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (ymG7s)

168 Reagan had a hostile media/entertainment/education culture and won in spite of it.

There is no comparison to the press today and the press in the 1970 and 80's. The level of coverup for Obama is, wait for it, UNPRECEDENTED.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (m2CN7)

169 Planes are racist.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (tVTLU)

170 Cars are racist.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (tVTLU)

171 Obama rallies are racist.

What do all three have in common? You need a photo id to engage or attend these activities.

Racists.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:48 AM (tVTLU)

172 "We need someone with principles who can communicate those principles powerfully..."

Yeah, that's good too. But primarily, we need someone who is good looking, reasonably young and kind of cool. That's what the swing voters want.

Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:48 AM (ZDsRL)

173 By the way, I like Rubio because he is articulate, confident, never without an answer, convincingly capable and an affable person.

I don't give a shit if he is Hispanic, conservative, a martian or a time-traveler.

This party focuses on the latter, trying to play all the demographic angles. That a stupid, obviously losing proposition.

Focus on the man. Cult of personality works in case you haven't noticed.


Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:48 AM (GGCsk)

174 All the money in the world wouldn't get a bigot to vote for a Mormon.

Posted by: Barry at November 27, 2012 11:49 AM (GmBJN)

175 Polynikes:

That is definitely true. However, the WaPo was publishing fake fucking polls against Reagan and calling it their "contribution in kind".

At least romney has the internet, alternative media and fox news to get SOME of the news out.

Reagan had nothing and was COMPLETELY BEHOLDEN to these commie MFM fucks.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:49 AM (tVTLU)

176 Picking the richest, whitest guy with no charisma or principles who also invented the opponent's most hated program wasn't a winning strategy. Who knew?

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 27, 2012 11:50 AM (6H6FZ)

177
We don't need Reagan today. We need someone who can talk to a majority of today's Americans.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (GGCsk)


I think you have a serious misunderstanding about what is going on today. There is no further point in talking to the Americans of Today. They are not reasoning creatures and will not be swayed with logic. They are, in my estimation, unreachable, and therefore the only thing to do is to allow nature to communicate with them in a language they can understand. Terror and deprivation.


Burn it down.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:50 AM (bb5+k)

178 >>>Focus on the man. Cult of personality works in case you haven't noticed.

This.

'MOAR CONSERVATIVE' is just one side of a candidate. It's an issue, but not the only one. Upbringing, personal story, career achievement, experience, family, charisma, good looks...all factors.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at November 27, 2012 11:51 AM (HjJbK)

179 >It's my understanding that the nominee gets to decide these things.<

Go back and listen to Priebus discussing this subject.

When you are done laughing or crying it will be evident the GOP GOTV was managed by a bunch of fools from the RNC.

Priebus gets the credit for that.

Anyone involved in decision making for this election should be exiled.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:51 AM (GGCsk)

180 "Reagan definitely would not have beaten Carter in 1976 no matter what
message Reagan had or what his personality was. The electorate at times
does not look beyond the meme of the day."

Yes. Carter won because of Nixon's ruin compounded by the MFM which did NOT expose the ideological insanity shared with Carter. Obama isn't the first presidential candidate not vetted.

Carter lost after his first term because he proved an idiot to voters in BOTH parties. He just couldn't resist being the worst.

Since GWBush, the only "Republican President" will be another Bush, by any name (Bush endorsed) as Romney would have been and the next ticket will sponsor. But the grotesque authoritarian top heavy growth in government, spending and wars -- all against constitutional governance -- will perpetuate through the GOP as with the Democrat Party ... "Shared Values" as Pelosi clarified.

Why expect anything but treachery from the Republican National Party at this point? It couldn't even complete the 2012 Primary Campaign according to its own rules. Obama wasn't the only guy with a 2012 POTUS ticket who reneged on contract or rule of law. And Romney didn't earn his nick "Obamalite" without reason.

Independent.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 11:52 AM (BAnPT)

181 Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:49 AM (tVTLU)

Its not what the Press reported about Reagan, its what the Press allowed to be reported about Carter.

The Iran crisis was not spun, his malaise comment was not spun, his dumb brother was not hidden, his withdrawal and handling of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was not spun, etc. etc.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:52 AM (m2CN7)

182 The media likes to spring traps, spring some traps on them.

Yes. Go Breitbart on their ass.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 27, 2012 11:52 AM (B/VB5)

183 I am a little sick of "ooh gee, if we'd only have a candidate who expressed Reaganite principles".Yeah, if we only did we would be beaten twice as bad.You think this electorate or the idiots that sat home care about that?

Marcus, with all due respect, go fuck yourself.

Reaganite principles are not just "principles espoused by Reagan." They are core conservative principles. If the American people don't recognize that conservative principles are GOOD FOR THEM, then we have to force them to realize it. I for one am tired of pussyfooting around and acting like I'm the bad guy because I don't want to buy Sandra Fluke's pussy pills.

We don't need Reagan today. We need someone who can talk to a majority of today's Americans.

Reagan was called the "Great Communicator" for a reason, nitwit. He was a leader who COULD talk to the majority of the country, regardless of political stripe, and make them believe in him and his policies. Did he make mistakes? Yeah. Did he far more often do the right thing? Damn straight.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (4df7R)

184 I disagree. Reagan had a hostile
media/entertainment/education culture and won in spite of it. The only
conservative press at the time was National Review and maybe the WSJ
Editorial page. There is now a much more robust alternate conservative
press and talk radio. The conservative message doesn't lack for
outlets.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (jucos)

During Reagan's time, the Media maintained a pretense of objectivity. Though they were very unfair to him, still they did not go to the extreme lengths of actively working for the Liberals that they do so today. The Reagan Media is nothing like the Current Media.


The conservative messages uses a speaking cone, while the opposition uses a Rock Theater Sound System. The two are not even slightly comparable. There is about 10 weight classes of difference between them.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (bb5+k)

185 Marcus,

You hit the nail on the head. Listening to this guy speak at the convention, I watched a youtube video of it afterward, after the election debacle.

Reagan was from a regular family in small town Illinois that turned this fucking country around the people believed him.

Here you have a guy whose parents were immigrants and worked as bartenders and retail checkout line night shifts. THIS IS AMERICA!!!!!!

If he has a good heart, people will trust him and believe his message. Rubio was tea party before the tea party was even really fired up.

The tea party is the reason he is now a Senator, although there was no formal alliance. His best friend is Jim DeMint. Folks that is good enough for me, WITHOUT QUESTION. If he passes vetting, this looks to be our guy.

Which is why I keep saying: Marco Rubio-Tom Cotton 2016!!!!

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (tVTLU)

186 Prediction for 2016:

The same retards who spent the last primary season whining about the big bad GOP Establishment Elite "picking our candidates for us" will again be distracted by at least one unelectable, poorly qualified vanity candidates.

They're too stupid to recognize a donor-funded book tour masquerading as a political campaign when they see one, but being able to personally claim the mantle of True Conservative is all that matters. Winning elections? Nah. That's RINO talk.

Next primary: If you don't have full term as Governor under your belt, have held the rank of General, or at minimum be a current Senator who has won re-election, then GTFO.

If you've never risen higher than the House, Colonel in the military, or managed to complete a term as governor, you're not going to be elected President. Get the fuck out of the way of those who can.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (SY2Kh)

187 "Yeah, that's good too. But primarily, we need someone who is good looking, reasonably young and kind of cool. That's what the swing voters want.
Posted by: jwest at November 27, 2012 11:48 AM "

I think you're probably right.

We need someone with principles who can convey those principles powerfully. That stuff you listed is part of that latter factor.

One way or another, our candidate needs to be able to connect.

But they need something real... something more than just prime time pizazz and electability. They need a record and they need principles they have stayed fairly true to.

They need an honest vision for our country, not some bs they came up with for this particular election year.

That + the factors you list.

Posted by: Dustin at November 27, 2012 11:54 AM (D9999)

188 Upbringing, personal story, career achievement, experience, family, charisma, good looks...all factors.
Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at November 27, 2012 11:51 AM (HjJbK)

Except for charisma, which I believe he had, seems to me you would be looking to renominate Romney.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:55 AM (m2CN7)

189 When Rubio spoke at the convention my immediate reaction was - we picked the wrong guy.

If someone can be that articulate and persuasive it gets to peoples inner feelings.

That quiet confidence compels people to vote.

A guy like that could read the the ingredients of a Miky Way and people would say- gee that was great.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 11:55 AM (GGCsk)

190
If you've never risen higher than the House,
Colonel in the military, or managed to complete a term as governor,
you're not going to be elected President. Get the fuck out of the way of
those who can.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (SY2Kh)


ISWYDT.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 11:56 AM (FVUmk)

191 "All the money in the world wouldn't get a bigot to vote for a Mormon."

Back to the ol' bigot meme, Barry (GmBJN).

/yawn

...And "just sayin" Steve Tyler's a racist. Not.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 11:56 AM (BAnPT)

192 Reagan had a hostile media/entertainment/education culture and won in spite of it.

------

Yep.

Posted by: Y-not at November 27, 2012 11:43 AM (5H6zj)

Not at all comparable to the Media Soldiers the left has today.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (bb5+k)

193 Palin hating cunts never quit.

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (6H6FZ)

194 "We are saying that Romney had readily identifiable weaknesses, including
being ill-suited to run against the Dem narrative of class warfare (and
war on women) but also having very limited success in politics and
being from a region he would not win. He didn't combat those
effectively. Obama's campaign was predictable. Romney needed to start
hammering on those things before the general.



And it is a bit rich to act like Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele
Bachmann, and even Rick Santorum were not valid candidates. They've
accomplished at least as much for the GOP as Mitt ever did."

This is sarcasm, right?

Had the GOP nominated any of those candidates, we would have lost the House as well. Instead of it being a 2-3 point race that was winnable, it would have been some sort of Mondale-like wipeout.

3 of those 4 candidates pandered with the "no rape exception" position on abortion to win Iowa. Good luck with female voters, that position is now beyond radioactive.

Romney was a solid candidate, better than most. His big, huge, horrible flaw was that he was a successful business man that made a lot of money. As others have said, you put the same demographics we with Reagan or Bush, it would have been a comfortable landslide.

My first pick BTW was not Romney, it was Pawlenty, but he of course had his flaws as well.

Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (o90Z3)

195 "Next primary: If you don't have full term as Governor under your belt, have held the rank of General, or at minimum be a current Senator who has won re-election, then GTFO."

I like this rule.

I wish to hell the conservatives would stick to a guy and not be pushed away when the left and the beltway GOP send out one reason after another to jump ship over and over while the establishment candidate wins pluralities.

But I also think it's possible for a conservative candidate to win establishment support pretty easily if he appears to be electable.

Posted by: Dustin at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (D9999)

196 I won't be sending the GOP another dime period. They're done. Why they don't have the womens vote rapped up is beyond me. The're the biggest bunch of pussies on the planet. I will however, go into hock supporting anyone who will start outing deviant behavior by MSM on youtube. One a week, like Survivor. Post at 8:00 every Monday night.

Posted by: Old Glazier at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (YGHl3)

197 I disagree. Reagan had a hostile media/entertainment/education culture and won in spite of it. The only conservative press at the time was National Review and maybe the WSJ Editorial page. There is now a much more robust alternate conservative press and talk radio. The conservative message doesn't lack for outlets.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 27, 2012 11:36 AM (jucos)


True, but the Liberal Press was not as blatant about it as they are now. There was a modicum of decency then and numbers were not openly rigged and accepted.

Oh, they were hostile, but they didn't spend hours each day under the table fellating Carter. They were determined that Dear Leader not be another Carter, by any means possible.

Reagan didn't win on messaging Conservatism. That came later, by example. He won on the Iranian Crisis and an economy that people felt the pain of.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (GgupS)

198 @190: the Palin Monster is under his bed, every night. It's got to be terrible for him.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 27, 2012 11:58 AM (B/VB5)

199 Again with the "Romney should have..." and "Republicans must..." and "we have to return to principles..." and all the other Monday-morning-quarterback bullshit.

Read and learn: Free Shit will always win when it runs against "we have to pay for."

You can't sugarcoat responsibility; compared to the Obamafone, forgiveness of college loans and the rest of Choom Boy's fraudulent bag o' tricks, reality and honesty lose, every friggin' time.

The current majority of voters has long been educated to see the Government Teat as the be-all and end-all of civilization. There is only one thing that matters, and it is the Holy Entitlement.

Combine it with a "clean, articulate" member of an Oppressed Minority (and, via him, a chance to right the wrongs of our evil past) and organized voter fraud on a scale Stalin would heartily endorse, and you have a new majority that will endure until the day when the cupboards are finally, irrevocably bare and there cannot be any more Free Shit.

On that day, the new majority will retain power by promising to somehow start the whole charade over again.

Happy Days Are Here Again....

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 27, 2012 11:58 AM (yKUrR)

200 Polynikes,

I would agree the fawning by MSM was something not previously seen beforet his election. Agreed. And the burying of these stories was criminal.

All that I am saying though is that there are ways to get this information, an unbiased look at things, through the internet. And fox news, which gets almost as much viewers as mainstream outlets.

Back then, Reagan had nothing he could rely on for a different source of news.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:59 AM (tVTLU)

201 the Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsiblity, but it's a lie, they have never been, are not now and will never be the party of fiscal responsiblity.

what is my proof?

everytime there is an opportunity to show some fiscal responsiblity the GOP folds, they talk tough for about 2 seconds and then turn tail and run.

spineless, useless, crooks and cowards is all they are.

Posted by: Shoey at November 27, 2012 11:59 AM (jdOk/)

202 186 Next primary: If you don't have full term as Governor under your belt, have held the rank of General, or at minimum be a current Senator who has won re-election, then GTFO.

If you've never risen higher than the House, Colonel in the military, or managed to complete a term as governor, you're not going to be elected President. Get the fuck out of the way of those who can.


As an atheist, I would wholeheartedly endorse God blessing *that* America.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 11:59 AM (hNXHo)

203
The same retards who spent the last primary
season whining about the big bad GOP Establishment Elite "picking our
candidates for us" will again be distracted by at least one unelectable,
poorly qualified vanity candidates.

They're too stupid to
recognize a donor-funded book tour masquerading as a political campaign
when they see one, but being able to personally claim the mantle of True
Conservative is all that matters. Winning elections? Nah. That's RINO
talk.

Next primary: If you don't have full term as Governor under your belt, have held the rank of General, or at minimum be a current Senator who has won re-election, then GTFO.

If
you've never risen higher than the House, Colonel in the military, or
managed to complete a term as governor, you're not going to be elected
President. Get the fuck out of the way of those who can.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (SY2Kh)


Incidentally, Romney completed a term as Governor. He still couldn't get elected to the Presidency.

Suppose he shoulda gotten the fuck outta the way, eh wot?

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 12:00 PM (FVUmk)

204 @ 189" If someone can be articulate and persuasive it gets to peoples inner feelings."

So said Hitler, and we know what a great speeches he gave.
The Devil is in the details...
As for another Bush in the house, open the chicken coup and let the Wolf look around.

Posted by: Clemenza at November 27, 2012 12:00 PM (Q8Pu5)

205 It finally dawned on me why LIB is unacceptable--it is saying "I quit on my country" in my eyes.

Country != ruling junta

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 12:00 PM (yE98L)

206 Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 11:45 AM (GgupS)

Media LONG game.... make the Founder's COOL again.... talk about FREEDOM... and self determination... and the idea that we should be free of Government interference in our lives...

Note, the first step is already taken by the popularity of the New Assasin's Creed video game...

Posted by: Ozymandius at November 27, 2012 12:00 PM (lZBBB)

207 I still think the biggest problem is a stupid
electorate. Either stupid or astonishingly self-centered and selfish. I
refuse to turn on Mitt.

I'm with irongrampa. It's up to each of us to try to educate people as to who or what they are voting for.

Posted by: Marmo at November 27, 2012 11:47 AM (QW+AD)

Talk won't overcome moving pictures. Television is a brainwashing machine for the stupid, and it is completely in the hands of our enemies.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 12:01 PM (bb5+k)

208 I think you'll have to do this well before the election starts. It will take years of dilution of their propaganda machine to even start to level the playing field.

It's already begun. Remember that 60% of the American public distrusts the media now. That works to our benefit, but also to our detriment. We want to make people QUESTION the media; make them think critically about what they're hearing and seeing. We want to hold media accountable, and when the media do something wrong, we want there to be consequences. We need equanimity in the media again; a level playing field. If the American people just flatout distrust the media, then that means they distrust ALL media, regardless of ideological affiliation. So Rush Limbaugh can stand there for hours screaming about liberal bias in the news and be just as ignored as those on MSNBC who shriek about right wing extremism at Fox News.


I don't care if MSNBC decides to tout itself as the ultimate clearinghouse for communist, marxist, Maoist, regressive "news you can use," so long as they're upfront and clear about it. I don't care if Hollywood makes films about the EEEEVIL oil industry because they want people to stop using oil. I WELCOME that, so long as I can make a film about the money pit solar industry to remind people that so-called "renewable energy" is niche at best without (this is key) WITHOUT being called a rightwing nutjob. It's when the media try to pass themselves off as objective, unbiased observers and narrators, while simultaneously condemning all other conversation as extremist, that I get furious.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at November 27, 2012 12:01 PM (4df7R)

209 We just need to add the re-election clause to the Governorship criterion.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 12:01 PM (hNXHo)

210
As an atheist, I would wholeheartedly endorse God blessing *that* America.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 11:59 AM (hNXHo)


Then you'd be as bloody clueless and lacking in self-awareness as the man who wrote that post. Congratulations, have a damn thin mint. >.>

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 12:01 PM (FVUmk)

211 When Rubio spoke at the convention my immediate reaction was - we picked the wrong guy.
**
marcus, WE didn't pick Romney. And so long as we vote for the Republican nominee, it will never be the guy WE supported. Rather, the guy with the Bush endorsement. And should Rubio get that endorsement, then he's the icing on their rotten cake. If anything, expect Jeb Bush to put Rubio on his GOP VP slot. But there will not be more constitutional governance from any Bush endorsed candidate IN OFFICE; rather, more authoritarianism and over spending.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 12:02 PM (BAnPT)

212 By the way, Erickson is part of the problem, not the solution.

There are enough people, especially lawyers and other sundry cast-offs from the legislative process who are endeared by the sound of their own voice.

Where is the credibility coming from? Why should we listen to these people? Why is their voice so "important"?

It's not. People need to think for themselves. Nobody needs some false prophet alleged savant who claims to have a special position or knowledge of political matters.

There only interest is self-promotion and they wear it on their sleeve so it can be sold, ad nauseum.

Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2012 12:02 PM (GGCsk)

213 '
Except for charisma, which I believe he had, seems to me you would be looking to renominate Romney.'
Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:55 AM ("

Come on. Romney is practically a democrat. His achievements include a gun tax and Romneycare. He's a brilliant businessman, but a corporatist. Which is ok with me, but there are a lot of lefties in that sector because it relies so heavily on government intrusion. Bain would be nothing without bankruptcy courts, which is a totally healthy part of our economy, but is also rests heavily on regulation and bureaucracy.

We nominated a guy who was electable in massachusetts because he had far more political skill than the dopes he ran against.

The problem is that he was completely wrong if our message is that Obama's ruining the country.

We need someone with principles they really believe in, rather than just adopted for political expediency, but they need to be able to convey those principles with the skill Romney showed.

I don't say this to bash Romney. It's not his fault we nominated him. But his policy record is very mixed to put it kindly, and that shows that the GOP didn't think liberalism is all that scary. 2012 should have been an election about how insane it is to have a liberal government, and we failed because our candidate proved that argument hollow (even though it's totally right).

Posted by: Dustin at November 27, 2012 12:03 PM (D9999)

214 "Winning elections?"

Know what you're electing.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 12:04 PM (BAnPT)

215 Then you'd be as bloody clueless and lacking in self-awareness as the man who wrote that post.

Why, because this list of qualifications would have excluded Bush 41?

It wouldn't have excluded Reagan. It wouldn't have excluded Bush 43. It wouldn't have excluded Eisenhower.

OK, maybe Nixon would have fallen out...so we should add "if you've held the office of VP, you're in too"?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 12:04 PM (hNXHo)

216
The Iran crisis was not spun, his malaise
comment was not spun, his dumb brother was not hidden, his withdrawal
and handling of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was not spun, etc.
etc.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 11:52 AM (m2CN7)

Exactly right. The press was biased in 1980, but they were more willing to report the News. Probably if Carter hadn't been so religious, or Black or something, they might have covered for him.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 12:04 PM (bb5+k)

217 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 11:53 AM (SY2Kh)

Yeah.... beacause Obama was reelected to the ... oh... I mean Gen. Obama was in Desert... nope....

Oh... Obama musta been Governor of one of those other 7 States!

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2012 12:05 PM (lZBBB)

218
My first pick BTW was not Romney, it was Pawlenty, but he of course had his flaws as well.


Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 11:57 AM (o90Z3)

Herman Cain would have kicked ass.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 12:06 PM (bb5+k)

219 It finally dawned on me why LIB is unacceptable--it is saying "I quit on my country" in my eyes.

Here's what I've been through in the past twenty some-odd years. I didn't vote for Cliton. He signed NAFTA and gutted my manufacturing career. I'm five years removed from a productive job in that sector for no reason other than the Progressive infestation in Washington that gave it away to other countries instead of encouraging them to create their own manufacturing sector. Remember when BJC said were going to move to a "service economy?" Why was that necessary? It took years to finally happen, but I now possess a vast body of knowledge that is virtually useless.

I didn't vote for TFG. Now I have to negotiate all the hoops and regulations to try to qualify for all the entitlements I'm forced to take instead of having a decent job. My quality of life has gone downhill dramatically, co-inciding with Progressive/Democrat Control.

I did not vote for any of this shit. What have I done to deserve a life of poverty when I should be in my prime money-making years and looking forward to a comfortable retirement? Every thing I once had has been taken away by Dims. My country quit on me by not doing everything it used to do to insure the success of its population. This is due to the Progressivism that we've allowed to take root in our once-great country.

I can't look at my next door neighbor, the one with the Obama yard sign, and think anything except contempt for what was once my fellow citizen. I see nothing more than a shell of a human with a writhing, immature, child-like ego where an independent, free-thinking adult should be.

Let it Burn.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 27, 2012 12:06 PM (lOmbq)

220
Well, y'all keep on thrashing and flailing around if you wish. I'll be down here doing just what I indicated earlier.

This is my country that I fought and bled for, so defending her is my only choice--until there isn't breath left.

See you later on, good people.

Posted by: irongrampa at November 27, 2012 12:06 PM (SAMxH)

221 and that shows that the GOP didn't think liberalism is all that scary

It didn't used to be all that scary with say JFK. That's pretty much were the GOP is today actually.

Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 12:06 PM (yE98L)

222 All that I am saying though is that there are ways
to get this information, an unbiased look at things, through the
internet. And fox news, which gets almost as much viewers as mainstream
outlets.




Posted by: Prescient11 at November 27, 2012 11:59 AM (tVTLU)

But the people you need to reach are not looking at them.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 12:08 PM (bb5+k)

223 I'd be for Romney in 2016, if Pence doesn't run.

Posted by: bill glass at November 27, 2012 12:08 PM (Q1BxK)

224 Charisma ain't all it's cracked up to be.

http://tinyurl.com/c4lnh97


Posted by: panzernashorn at November 27, 2012 12:09 PM (BAnPT)

225 Obviously, no rules apply to the SCoaMF.

Focus on who's actually *won* election recently, eh?

Bush 43 and Clinton are 16 years of previously re-elected Governor in the WH. Throw in 8 years of Reagan, and all of a sudden, those guys start to look pretty good.

Other than the SCoaMF and Bush 41, the category of "previously re-elected Governors" looks kinda good over my lifetime.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 12:09 PM (hNXHo)

226 Incidentally, Romney completed a term as Governor. He still couldn't get elected to the Presidency.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 12:00 PM (FVUmk)


I'm not convinced he lost.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 12:09 PM (bb5+k)

227
"Free Shit. Race. Major, uncontested fraud.

The rest is trivia...."

"Run the figures, all day long. Construct new models to cross reference and predict outcomes. Sit around a table and harumph, harumph, harumph all you want.....

This. is. the. truth."

Yep...and you can't say it out loud without branding yourself a nutty, racist, conspiracy theorist, fringer who needs to be put on some watch list. Hell, you can say that to someone who you figure is educated and informed and youwill hear a line of invective hurled back at you about all sorts of unrelated crap that has been dishonestly grafted to our FSA complaints by the MSM.

You can support Ryan's proposal of a gradual weaning off of SS that never touches the 55+ set, but you will be accused of wanting to murder grandma.

You can state agreement with the gist of Romney's 47% comment, but get an ear full of military this, police that, and deserving retiree other.

You can talk about wasteful spending and get a torrent of "don't you like roads and bridges" thrown back at you.

You can talk about the rampant fraud of welfare and food stamps and get accused of keeping a white robe and hood in your closet...followed by a lecture steeped in teh soft racism of historical victimhood and the wisdom of keeping "them" satisfied lest "those people" riot.

Yes, this was my family Thanksgiving.

Posted by: Jaws at November 27, 2012 12:09 PM (4I3Uo)

228 I disagree with the idea that Reagan dealt with the same media. I was there, and the hostage coverage was continuous, 24/7. Benghazi? Almost invisible. Yes, the news was slanted, but the stories were still *there*. They had to be, 'cause it was still THE NEWS then. With, ya know, news about important stuff. This entire term for Obama I kept thinking (with a sigh of relief), OK, *that* will break him. But the stories were never even covered. That's the difference. Everyone knew Operation Eagle Claw was an abject failure at all levels of decision making, because even the hardest left newsie knew it had to be reported. Benghazi? Not so much.

Posted by: Pentangle at November 27, 2012 12:10 PM (ITrpq)

229 206 Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 11:45 AM (GgupS)

Media LONG game.... make the Founder's COOL again.... talk about FREEDOM... and self determination... and the idea that we should be free of Government interference in our lives...

Posted by: Ozymandius at November 27, 2012 12:00 PM (lZBBB)


Against the media, it's only going to happen by example. fReEsHiTArMy!!!!! has be hit square on the head, repeatedly, to get it. They don't feel the pain when they can cruise on EBT cards and unemployment, ad infinitum. Once they feel real pain, the media won't be able to cover it up any longer. Notice the increased emphasis on "Republicans fault". The Bush card is pretty well played (they still do it) so now it's the HOR.

Got to expose the lies. This is where Breitbart knew exactly what he was doing and it was working.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 12:11 PM (GgupS)

230 It didn't used to be all that scary with say JFK. That's pretty much were the GOP is today actually.
Posted by: Winston Smith (Islam edition) at November 27, 2012 12:06 PM (yE98L)

JFK did one tax reduction and people use him as an example of a conservative Democat. That's really inaccurate. Democrats have been socialists since Wilson. The Republican party of today is moving closer but that does not mean that they are anywhere near close.

Posted by: polynikes at November 27, 2012 12:13 PM (m2CN7)

231 The day that Republicans can offer things, concrete things, that people cna see benefit their daily lives is the day we will start winning people over to our side.

See what Obamaphones, food stamps, and extended unemployment checks did for people. Well, for Democrats. I'm not saying give people "free" stuff, but people need to see an immediate benefit to voting Republican. Mitt is a good man and did many great things to help people in his personal life, unlike Obama. But Obama offered people things that benefitted them. Things that people could see and hold and use.

We need to appeal to peoples' base desires. And no, I don't have any answers as to how. Yet.

Posted by: Marmo at November 27, 2012 12:14 PM (QW+AD)

232 After Reagan's election in 1980, the Democratic Party did a MAJOR review and revision of its Presidential nomination rules. The DNC appointed a formal commission and it had a staff (my former BF was the deputy staff director, which is why I know about this).They looked at everything about the way they picked their nominee, from the makeup of state delegations to primaries vs. caucuses and winner-take-all vs. proportional delegates.The rule changes they enacted probably kept Jesse Jackson from being their nominee in 1984 and again in 1988.

There's a good reason why Republicans always end up with the guy whose turn it is, and the Democrats never do. Their process is more wide open and it is more conducive to "non-establishment" candidates who can catch fire and rack up a lot of delegates in states where Democrats are actually competitive in the general election. This is why Hillary Clinton is not President today.

If the RNC refuses to do something about its fucked up caucus/primary schedule and process (NO MORE OPEN PRIMARIES!!!!) and the makeup of its delegates and Platform committee, we're going to keep getting our brains beaten in. We have a process that has given us bad candidates and ridiculous, indefensible platforms for the last5 elections. Somebody needs to wake the hell up and fix this.

Posted by: rockmom at November 27, 2012 12:14 PM (aBlZ1)

233 1.) Shallow, easily-distracted, low-information electorate.
2.) Goodies. Auto bailouts, food-stamps, EBT cards, SNAPs, Birth Control, "free" healthcare, etc.
3.) Hopelessly corrupt major media outlets.
Mitt Romney ranks way, WAY down on the list of reasons we lost. He was easily stereotyped, but given reasons #1 #3, ANY republican can be stereotyped as 1.) Old 2.) Out-of-touch. 3.) Racist. 4.) Mean. 5.) Stupid. 6.) Any combination thereof.

Posted by: Sam In VA at November 27, 2012 12:14 PM (rFiOs)

234 Best plan ever!

Posted by: Monty Brewster at November 27, 2012 12:15 PM (mjR67)

235 Erickson has been a grade AAA Romney hater from the start. Romney would have been an outstanding president and he was a good choice for the GOP to run against Obama.

What happened:
1) Obama had managed to hold the money advantage through most of the campaign.
2) This money advantage was HUGELY amplified by the lap dog media. They aided Obama in many ways from amplifying Obama's "kill Romney" campaign of crap slinging to not reporting on ANYTHING that might hurt Obama.
3) The worst of all, I believe that we have reached the end of our Republic. What is the average, 200 years? We had a good run, but now our Republic is in its twilight. The voters want bread and circus and could care less about freedom or the future of this once great nation.

Erickson can go eat crap for all I care. He is trying to turn this into a "see I told ya so" moment when the reality is far graver and more serious.

Posted by: Evan Maughan at November 27, 2012 12:17 PM (XGtPJ)

236 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 27, 2012 12:09 PM (bb5+k)
touché. I'm not quite sure about that either.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 27, 2012 12:18 PM (FVUmk)

237 "As for anyone who thinks Romney and Reagan are even remotely comparable
as candidates, I'd note one of them won 2 presidential elections in huge
landslides and the other lost to one of the worst Presidents in
American history."

With dramatically different demographics. Do some research.

Posted by: Chris E. at November 27, 2012 12:18 PM (0EdX0)

238 While I agree we need to take a hard look at political consultants and how they are paid, Erickson is pointing fingers elsewhere to absolve himself of any responsibility. I recommend people go look at his postings during and after the primaries.

Here's the thing. Perry was my first choice, but I was able to realize he just wasn't going to make it, and switched to supporting Romney after Perry withdrew. I hated it that Perry froze in the debates and then went full class-envy on Romney out of desperation, but life doesn't always turn out the way we want.

Erickson couldn't let that go, and furthermore I think he had a personal interest in being able to say "I told you so" if Romney lost. My country means more to me than Erickson's job prospects, so although I think someone ought to ask Zack Moffat to donate some of his ill-gotten swag to a worthy cause, I am not giving Erickson a pass.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 27, 2012 12:19 PM (GoIUi)

239 After the rain comes the sunshine.

After Goldwater we got Reagan.

All is NOT lost. If there is anything left to save in four years we will save it.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at November 27, 2012 12:20 PM (wR+pz)

240 228 I disagree with the idea that Reagan dealt with the same media. I was there, and the hostage coverage was continuous, 24/7. Benghazi? Almost invisible. Yes, the news was slanted, but the stories were still *there*. They had to be, 'cause it was still THE NEWS then. With, ya know, news about important stuff. This entire term for Obama I kept thinking (with a sigh of relief), OK, *that* will break him. But the stories were never even covered. That's the difference. Everyone knew Operation Eagle Claw was an abject failure at all levels of decision making, because even the hardest left newsie knew it had to be reported. Benghazi? Not so much.
Posted by: Pentangle at November 27, 2012 12:10 PM (ITrpq)


Yep. So was I. Watching it non-stop from the barracks TV room, wondering what clusterfuck Mr. Peanut was going to come up with.

The media was definitely not the same.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 12:20 PM (GgupS)

241 Oh, and I forgot #4 Fraud, although I do not believe that gave Obama the election, it did pump up his numbers!

Again, Erickson, kiss my ass moron (no offense intended to the beloved morons on this site)

Posted by: Evan Maughan at November 27, 2012 12:21 PM (XGtPJ)

242 Grasping for an analogy here.

I am out of step with modern American society. I have a particular way of life that most modern Americans shun. It is a specific set of views and values. I think the majority are wrong to shun that way of life, and I think the country would be better if instead of rejecting my views, they embraced them.

What is that way of life?

I'm an avid reader of books. Whereas the mainstream culture is not. America is more and more an aliterate society. Most adult Americans can read, but most of those who can read, opt not to. They prefer televisual news and entertainment.

I find this distressing. I think society would be healthier if it cultivated active literacy and regular deep reading. But at least the aliterate majority aren't trying to crush my cultural niche. I can continue to read all I want. There aren't any government controls on publishing or purchasing books.

Now imagine that I got on my high horse and decided to make it a political crusade to force everyone in America to read whether they liked it or not. As a matter of law. Using government power. Compulsory reading! Mandatory book reports every week! The same stuff most people hated in high school.

This would lose elections. Hugely.

In fact, the blowback would likely be so strong that the nonreading majority, instead of ignoring me as a reader in my previously safe niche, would then instead actively start to intrude on that niche with government power of their own. Power that, since my views lose elections, I would find myself unable to fight back against.

So instead of managing to extend my views and values to the larger population, I would instead only achieve the exact opposite of extension, and find the sphere of expression of my own views and values being shrunk.

Of course, the analogy I am advancing is to the cause of of social conservatism.

Socons too inhabit a niche where their views are not popular with the American majority. Many socons aver that society as a whole would be better and healthier if people were forced as a matter of law to adopt social-conservative positions, such as an absolute abortion ban in all circumstances.

And yet, those policy views lose elections. Hugely.

Those election losses are then negatively consequential for social conservatism not only in the broader society, but even in its own private niche.

The takeaway from the Obama years is that if you lose the election, things don't revert to the safe status quo ante. You don't get to keep your previously safe sphere in which, while the rest of society doesn't share your views and values, you at least can continue to practice them and lead your own life and make your own decisions unmolested by the hand of the state.

No. It doesn't work that way at all these days. In the age of Obama, and probably from here on out, what you will get will be analogous to my hypothetical backlash against reading.

Instead of government leaving social cons alone in their own niche to make their own decisions by their own lights, socons are going to have government power intrude everywhere in that zone. The state will insist that socially conservative institutions pay for contraception and abortion. You'll see a push to force socially conservative churches to solemnize gay marriage "whether you like it or not", in the nasty catchphrase of the left. Censorship of socon views will rise.

Given a choice between two options, one being bad and the other being much worse, the rational choice is to go with the one that's merely bad. It is time for social cons to go off somewhere quiet and have themselves a long think about this calculus.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 27, 2012 12:23 PM (ymG7s)

243 The media has definitely changed, there was still a modicum of professionalism even though the players were all liberal. There was a slant, but it was more subtle.

Conservatives like me became excited that the dinosaur media was dying, but honestly, I would prefer the old way to this. It's almost like they're like a wounded animal that's most dangerous right before they die, but I'm not sure they will ever truly "die".

Obama would have been DOA had we had the same media and demographics we had in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and probably up until about 2000.

After Bush was when I noticed the biggest change, the 2000 election was actually pretty fair, after that was when it went from slanted coverage to almost like some sort of coup.

Posted by: McAdams at November 27, 2012 12:24 PM (o90Z3)

244 You can talk about the rampant fraud of welfare and food stamps and get accused of keeping a white robe and hood in your closet...followed by a lecture steeped in teh soft racism of historical victimhood and the wisdom of keeping "them" satisfied lest "those people" riot.

Yes, this was my family Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Jaws at November 27, 2012 12:09 PM (4I3Uo)


*ugh*

My condolences. I would have got up and left at "historical victimhood". I've done it before.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 27, 2012 12:28 PM (GgupS)

245 Here's the real clue: if you are paying any attention to what that failed lawyer and political hustler Erickson is saying, you are surely the sucker. Maybe you should pay him a few hundred bucks for the privilege of meeting him and your fellow suckers in person at one of his "conferences."


Posted by: Adjoran at November 27, 2012 12:30 PM (ZHQvg)

246 Unless and until we break the liberal stranglehold on the mass media, the Democrats will continue to set the terms of debate -- and keep winning.

We need to literally destroy the mass media. Hound the partisan hack "journalists" into some other line of work; expose their personal lives and terrorize them with threats and harassment -- JUST LIKE THEY DO TO US.

Here's something you can do: set fire to every newspaper vending machine you pass on the street. Just takes one match.

Phone in bomb scares to the networks. Hell, plant bombs. They are destroying America, and if America falls the world will follow. They are actively waging war and we're not even fighting. Until Rachel Maddow finds a horse head in her sheets one morning, we're not fighting. Until Pinch Sulzberger's car explodes when he turns the key, we're not fighting.

Posted by: Trimegistus at November 27, 2012 12:31 PM (OLgc9)

247 Americans will wait in a 2 hour line for a free $1.50 taco.

It is precisely the free shit.

Posted by: nip at November 27, 2012 12:31 PM (11Tdq)

248 "Mitt lovers are going to blame anyone but Mitt"

Disagree, Romney did make some mistakes, but not that many. Choosing Ryan over Rubio, maybe. I would have been happier with either, but I believe Rubio would have been better for the hispanic pander (and yes we need to get more hispanics or we are forever toast - which I kinda think anyway). Ryan did not do well in the debate and he could have done soooo much better. Team Romney focused too much on being the "jobs" guy, they really needed to go harder on Obama's record. Finally, Romney did this some of the time but he really really needed to point out to the press their incredible bias - the one are Newt really excelled out. He should have made the press bias the news.

With that said, Romney was more positive, pro America, idea orientated, presidential, and articulate. Americans chose free stuff and hip over record, vision and substance.

Posted by: Evan Maughan at November 27, 2012 12:32 PM (XGtPJ)

249 in san diego the data matters alright, because the consultants have access to the most expensive resource in the world: data. data lets the consultants who have investment people use this data under the guise of campaign work. its a win-win for all. give money/contact_names to a local campaign and within one week you will be contacted by any number of organizations begging for money for their projects, and these people do fundraising for all concerned but manly for themselves. the local party head is a money manager/insurance broker who can use this list endlessly for his own personal business. data. it matters. for them only.

Posted by: sally at November 27, 2012 12:33 PM (s1Np6)

250 247 Americans will wait in a 2 hour line for a free $1.50 taco.

It is precisely the free shit.


We folks who place a value on our time...sigh...we're the ones doomed to extinction.

If your time is worthless, that wait makes sense, you're suddenly $1.50 richer.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 27, 2012 12:34 PM (hNXHo)

251 Romney did not fight. America still hates pussies.

Posted by: nip at November 27, 2012 12:34 PM (11Tdq)

252 I think I'll be changing this handle. I don't use it very often, anyway, and I don't want to cause confusion with "CJ Burch is Eddie Willers" and Irongrampa's statement of "just call me Eddie Willers, if you wish".

Posted by: Eddie Willers at November 27, 2012 12:36 PM (bRdb3)

253 But we need to take this defeat apart like the NTSB does a plane crash

"Fate is the hunter."
"SOCON!!! There is no FATE!"

One thing you don't often see at an NTSB site is the various inspectors pulling loaded weapons on each other. Although it could happen, just like here.

Radial engines required quite a bit of maintenance, but they were reliable. We are trying to use them to cruise at 47000, because all the other engines are built by people who put their pistons in the wrong cylinder. That, and every crash has pieces of dead baby all over. It's hard to get past that.



Posted by: comatus at November 27, 2012 12:39 PM (qaVK+)

254 It looks like "I'm Eddie Willers" is the new "Who is John Galt?".

Posted by: Eddie Willers at November 27, 2012 12:39 PM (bRdb3)

255 Here is a thought:

How about you baby killers, and homo embracers, join the Dems and change their party? It might be easier.

Plenty of 2nd Amendment democrats. GOP about to agree to tax increases.

Posted by: nip at November 27, 2012 12:40 PM (11Tdq)

256
We need a man like Colonel Allen West.

Just my 2 cents - FWIW

Posted by: Marybeth at November 27, 2012 12:46 PM (37NTx)

257 Incidentally, Romney completed a term as Governor. He still couldn't get elected to the Presidency.

Suppose he shoulda gotten the fuck outta the way, eh wot?


Gotten out of the way of whom?

It was a weak field, but he ended up our best chance out of the lot. That he failed doesn't change that.

Anyone who believes that the likes of Santorum, Cain, Palin (LOL) or Bachmann would've won where Romney lost is delusional and/or just plain stupid.

The long primary cycle was not helpful, nor was having 8 people on stage at the debates. No more than 3 of them were remotely legitimate candidates. the primary should've been over and done with by April.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 27, 2012 12:52 PM (SY2Kh)

258 Fraud.

It's tempting to go all rah-rah about changing the culture
and fixing the GOP and getting out the vote, but if none of it matters, then
none of it matters.

Until we fix the fraud, we'll lose, no matter what else we do.

Posted by: pestilential at November 27, 2012 01:07 PM (3SW88)

259
258Fraud.

^^^^^^^
This, along with Allen West, who at least tried to fight the fraud - with very little help from the GOP. I might add -plus cleaning out the GOP establishment and closing up the open primaries would go a long way toward fixing the problems.

Heck, it might even solve them.

Posted by: Marybeth at November 27, 2012 01:21 PM (37NTx)

260
Anyone who believes that the likes of Santorum, Cain, Palin (LOL) or Bachmann would've won where Romney lost is delusional and/or just plain stupid.
Posted by: Hollowpoint





Couldn't actually do worse, you know....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 27, 2012 01:25 PM (kdS6q)

261 Why is it not enough for you right-wing racist haters to acknowledge that the free and correctly-thinking persons of the United States of America have simply refused your vision for America? They have rejected racism, out of control capitalism, wars agaist brown people, and instead believe in his Hope for a Future not based on war.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at November 27, 2012 01:44 PM (jCQ+I)

262 Yeah. We right wingers hate racists. That's why we vote against democrats, you loaf of shit.

Posted by: ccoffer at November 27, 2012 02:42 PM (4DRxe)

263
PILOT ERROR!
Failure to Identify the Target!
Failure to Engage the Target!
Failure to Destroy the Target!
Failing to Recognize the War!
Fighting the war to win hearts and minds rather than to win the war!
Repunks suck at most things except, rolling over, losing elections and asking may I have another please!
Tea Party Patriot tired of the rich, old, whiteboy, Chickenchit Party!

Posted by: Concealedkerry or SubMitt at November 27, 2012 02:52 PM (vXqv3)

264 Sorry, but I'm no intersted in "fixing" the GOP. As they say "you can't fix stupid".

The GOP in 1981 agreed to never challenge vote fraud. We need a party that is not under that anti-voter obligation. We need a new party and leave the a$$hole RINOs in the dust. Otherwise, they will feed us Jeb in '16 (if there is a '16).

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 27, 2012 06:06 PM (KL49F)

265 Give money to support a republican and what happens to it? The money ends up spent on advertising in the MSM! Give money to a republican and it ends up in the pockets of the enemy. We're effed.

Posted by: yoopper at November 27, 2012 10:33 PM (0cBMc)






Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0531 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0181 seconds, 274 records returned.
Page size 192 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat