Opinion: Why, Damn These RINOs For Ruining Everything

I've avoided this topic because we've had it sixty three thousand times before and, especially right after the election, I thought it would be nice to decompress.

But at some point I guess we're going to have to have this argument.

Here's one guy making the case that RINOs once again didn't listen to TrueCons and destroyed everything.

I just have so little patience for or interest in this argument. To me it boils down to 1, "If Only They Had Listened To Me," a political evergreen, and 2, a gorilla-like dominance/aggression display that I've seen before -- a lot.

The article talks up about how wrong it was to nominate Romney without ever -- and this is the part of these arguments I find so childish -- without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better.

See, this is that Pie Chart situation I talked about in politics. When you announce a specific policy -- or support a specific candidate -- you're defending a rather narrow wedge of the pie. The pie represents the Sum Total of All Possible Policy Responses (or Possible Candidates), so anytime someone criticizes your tiny slice of the pie without placing his flag on his own tiny slice of the pie, he's engaging in an easy political maneuver -- you have to defend a tiny bit of pie whereas his argument appeals to anyone who wanted any other slice of pie. That is, his vagueness on who we actually should have nominated allows the partisans of every other possibility -- Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, Huntsman (!), Johnson (!), Perry, and who-all else -- to say "Yes, I agree with that. Rather than that one piece of pie, we should have selected one of the seven or ten others."

But which one? If this guy came forward and said "and that's why we should have picked Santorum," he'd have a tougher case to make.

But it makes the easy one -- we shouldn't have picked Romney, but instead one of the thousand other Republican office-holders or opinion-leaders who are Not Romney -- and anyone who likes any of those thousand other options can agree.

It's a silly bit of positioning which invites opponents to defend a flawed man, or a flawed position, while one nobly argues for The Hypothetical Ideal, and the Ideal is undefined so it can be one thing to one person and another thing to someone else.

Romney was a major disappointment to me. I feel responsible for this loss, as I was one of the people who got on the Romney train midway -- not at the beginning, but earlier than most, too. I feel that certain representations I made (and I believed) turned out to be false. I thought, for example, that this intelligence and ability and past successes would count in his favor; I thought people might like that in a candidate. (Actually, I earlier supported Pawlenty, and then Perry, precisely because I thought that a more blue-collar standard-bearer was better. But they lost, and Santorum, while having a certain blue-collar appeal I thought was attractive, seemed otherwise too flawed to nominate, so I wound up convincing myself that the public could embrace an aspirational, success-story figure, rather than grousing about how Rich That Guy Is.)

I thought that his "moderate New England tone" on social issues would make him more appealing to swing voters, particularly women.

I thought his prior ability to organize large sprawling concerns would wind up giving us a big advantage in get out the vote and such -- and it didn't. In fact, his campaign seems to have been much more poorly organized than most.

For these things, I'm sorry. I was wrong. I thought he would be a better candidate. I thought he would win. He wasn't and he didn't.

On the other hand, I'm still not seeing any good arguments for the notion that another candidate would have won. Now, no one could do worse than Romney -- he lost, after all. You can't do worse than losing. So there would not be any particular bad outcome attached had we nominated, let's say, Herman Cain.

But I'm still finding it rather incredible that the more flamboyant and/or limited-niche candidates would somehow have won, just because, supposedly, they would have been pushing Conservative Principles more effectively.

I think Romney pushed a fairly strong conservative economic policy -- mind you, without a very good conservative economic argument.

I just haven't seen the case made that we should have nominated this specific candidate, say Gingrich, and he would have won, as opposed to the kind of empty and vague statement that we should have nominated someone better.

I would have loved to have nominated someone better.

But who?

Anyway, it's unavoidable that we have just this "My Segment of the Party Is Quite Clearly the Most Popular and Victory-Producing Part of It So Let's All Gather Under My Flag" argument at some point. Unfortunately, after a loss, that's what people do. They have to do this. It's not even something I can really say "Hey let's not do this" to. It's something that has to happen. It's part of the process.

So let the knives be drawn and let the blood be spilled.

Posted by: Ace at 05:12 PM



Comments

1 Hoist the black flag... Pirate Party 2016

Posted by: Token Black Person at November 28, 2012 05:14 PM (dt2qx)

2 Uh, I meant... "first" (gay)

Posted by: Token Black Person at November 28, 2012 05:15 PM (dt2qx)

3 Oh, great. Ace is monopolizing the conversation again.

Posted by: fluffy at November 28, 2012 05:15 PM (4pSIn)

4 All this talk is bullshit. We lost because 51% of the people want their free shit. End of story. Doesn't matter if it was Romney or anyone else.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 05:15 PM (HDgX3)

5 But who?

Denise Milani.

Posted by: some horny physics prof at November 28, 2012 05:15 PM (QGyiB)

6 Wasn't Romney. Was us.

Posted by: Low -Info Electorate at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (wIgpo)

7 Personally, I don't think Reagan could have been elected this time around. This country's gone 'round the bend.

LIB

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (WjPKH)

8 #4 has the answer.
Next thread, please

Posted by: Dastardly Dan at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (rvLeh)

9 I really need a thread about puppies. I don't think I can take one more topic on what we should have/should not have done. I think Romney was a good candidate and would have made an excellent president. I didn't always feel that way but by the time he was nominated, he had me convinced and I still hold that belief.

Puppies. Let's heal with puppies...

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (TYO2p)

10
1Hoist the black flag... Pirate Party 2016





i got rhum

Posted by: Cicero Kid at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (OOML8)

11 I do think that the electorate is now utterly brainwashed that leftism is normal and conservative, free-market, individualist America is evil.

Until and unless we can reverse that, or at least until we can get a Reagan-esque speaker who can easily, fluently and passionately state the case for conservatism in a way that is understandable and appealing (while simultaneously taking down the commie vision of Amerikkka), we are not going to win national elections.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (vCK/R)

12 Denise Milani.

People Men would tune in to watch the debate.

Posted by: fluffy at November 28, 2012 05:17 PM (4pSIn)

13
8#4 has the answer.
Next thread, please





I concurr.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at November 28, 2012 05:18 PM (OOML8)

14 I would bet my left nut that we win in 2016. It's how it works. The donks will have run this country into the ground so deep that no free obamaphone will fix it.

Have faith! And puppies!

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:18 PM (TYO2p)

15 The other thing going against us is the fact that our own party, the establishment Republicans, hates us and conservatism. They trash our candidates worse than the Dems do.

We have got to at least crack that nut before anything.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:18 PM (vCK/R)

16 12
Denise Milani.


People Men would tune in to watch the debate.

The women would too
never underestimate the power of epic boobs

Posted by: Dastardly Dan at November 28, 2012 05:18 PM (rvLeh)

17 Romney wasn't the greatest, but probably the best one running. I thought he could win. Hell, I thought anyone could beat JEF. I don't know if the better side will ever win again.

Posted by: Ronster at November 28, 2012 05:18 PM (nQMHQ)

18 >>>The other thing going against us is the fact that our own party, the establishment Republicans, hates us and conservatism.

I don't believe that. Are you talking about Akin?

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (LCRYB)

19 My mind makes me what I am. Horn dogs.

Posted by: Denise Milani at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (wIgpo)

20 How long is this rope supposed to be?

Posted by: David Carradine at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (QKKT0)

21
Denise Milani.


Holy smokes! Major back problems....

Posted by: Cicero Kid at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (OOML8)

22 Remember when Gen. Eric Republican was winning? We should have stuck with him.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (/1U3u)

23 I tell you was wrong this election: I was.

I wanted Perry to be the nominee, but based on his performance in the primary he would have gotten his ass kicked a lot worse than Romney's narrow defeat.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (GsoHv)

24 Ron Paul!

Posted by: Every Ron Paul! Supporter at November 28, 2012 05:20 PM (nw6o9)

25 Don't beat yourself up too much Ace.... I wasn't initially a Romney supporter but I also thought he was a good candidate for the same reasons that you did. The country is in serious economic trouble and we're in need of a turn around artist. And I think he could have done the job.... business would have trusted him enough to take a few risks, which would have given the economy enough of a jolt to get things moving and from there it would have been a matter of negotiating. It made alot of sense. When the brought Ryan on board, I thought it was a clear signal that this was a team that was serious about trying to bring a sane perspective to fiscal issues.

And IMHO.... The reasons you and I felt that Romney could be a good ticket, is exactly what the Campaign failed to Sell. They ended up running away from false attacks on Bain Capital rather than selling the huge successes of Bain Capital.

Posted by: 2nd Amendment Mother at November 28, 2012 05:21 PM (L4CWX)

26 The donks will have run this country into the ground so deep that no free obamaphone will fix it.



And the GOP will get all the blame, courtesy of the MFM.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 28, 2012 05:21 PM (QKKT0)

27 Basically if the primary schedule had been weighted from the most conservative states to the least and you had limited the debates to actual conservative outlets FOX, etc. You wold have gotten either Perry or Gingrich.

But instead we had a million debates where all of the questions were framed from the liberal perspective by the mostly liberal moderators, by the way the midget greek sowed the seeds for the War on Woman GOP is pro rape war in a primary debate, where the candidates destroyed each other.

Also Romney relished going up against his more conservative opponents more so than he relished attacking Obama, by which he didn't


LIB

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 28, 2012 05:21 PM (RrD4h)

28 I don't believe that. Are you talking about Akin?

Well, I am not. Remember Sarah Palin? Of course you do. Because you HATE her.

But that's not the point. Everybody screwed the pooch this time.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:21 PM (/1U3u)

29 One of the many tricks Obama pulled out of a bag was Bill Clinton.

If Gingrech had been the nominee, Clinton would have beaten him singlehandedly, the same way he did in the '90's. Remember Clinton kept his job and Gingrech lost his.

I found the available presidential timber rather uninspiring in 2012, and like Ace, I thought Romney was the best of a sorry lot. Somebody had to be the nominee, and had to want it badly enough to fight for it.

Romney fought for the nomination but didn't fight for the presidency. He hired consultants and digital campaign experts, and they failed him. He never took the fight to Obama after that first debate.


Posted by: Boots at November 28, 2012 05:22 PM (neKzn)

30 Ask Karl Rove- it should have been JEB

Posted by: museisluse at November 28, 2012 05:22 PM (SsWgR)

31 18 >>>The other thing going against us is the fact that our own party, the establishment Republicans, hates us and conservatism.

I don't believe that. Are you talking about Akin?
Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (LCRYB)


I'm talking about Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz. Look, aside from Akin's gaffe - and it was hideous - he would have been won the damned seat. Mourdock too. The fact is that all the moderate candidates got their asses beaten too and the establishment never says that they were flawed.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (vCK/R)

32 I will certainly say that the professional political class is professional in both the good and bad senses of the word -- on one hand, they know actual numbers. They see polls. They do focus groups. They have data.

On the other hand, being professional also means being mercenary and treating the whole thing like just a job, whereas, for the average activist, this is a vocation and a cause.

There is good and bad in both. I believe this strongly. Heat needs cooling and passion also needs realism; and also, coolness needs heat and dry gray realism needs fire and idealism.

But with things like Akin, I'll tell you that most True Conservatives do not know the data on how many people support the "no rape exceptions' polisiton, and how many people are against that, and consider it sort of a point of pride that they're ignorant of this, because, well, Right Is Right.

The trouble is when 83% of the public hates that position, and only 14% supports it, Right may be Right (up to debate) but I'll tell you what Right is not -- Right is not getting into office.

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (LCRYB)

33

I don't think it is totally "51% of Americans want free stuff", but it was framed very much as a class war struggle (who would have expected that from Obama?), and Romney ran a campaign in which he hoped to be able to govern after election.

He didn't go negative on Obama when he should have gone negative, and allowed Obama to totally frame him as a villain in the class war struggle.

It is somewhat amazing, in retrospect, how much Marxist - Soviet thinking has penetrated the mainstream of American thought.

We are screwed not because 51% of the electorate want free stuff, but because they have given up on individualism and personal responsibility, and begun the death embrace of collectivism. And yes, one of the consequences of that embrace is the expectation of "free stuff", from taxes on the "2%", which I heard on the news today.
It's now the top 2% that are the class enemies.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (RFeQD)

34 We keep nominating "moderates" and we keep losing. This is never going to change until we decide that Red States should be at the front of the nominating process, not the back.


And shifting over to the amnesty side will only make 20 million new Democrats who want free shit.

Posted by: Vic at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (YdQQY)

35 That's it then. From now on, no more GOP pooch-screwing.


Permanent electoral majority, here we come.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (QKKT0)

36

So let the knives be drawn and let the blood be spilled.




But, but, we had such a spirit of camaraderie in the Denise Milani thread! Of unity!

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (9oGUt)

37
Everybody screwed the pooch this time.





Not everyone screwed it. Buuurrrp!

Posted by: Barky O' Dogbreath at November 28, 2012 05:24 PM (OOML8)

38 I don't believe that. Are you talking about Akin?
Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:19 PM (LCRYB)


------------------------------------------------


I don't think that is what he's talking about, Ace. There are many elected and inside-the-beltway elitist repubs that are embarrassed over conservatism. Remember their reaction to the Tea Party, lower taxes, among other conservative ideas. Akin and Mourdock were the whipping boys. The MFM and everyone else connected conservatism to them.

The problems in the repub party are much deeper than two candidates.

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 05:24 PM (WjPKH)

39 I thank the voter fraud and incompetent RINO based campaign advisors for allowing months of attack ads without a response, never really pushing the positive attributes of capitalism (Bain), and a general failure in allowing white guilt to be a reason not to point out the incompetence of the Obama staff, policies, and actions both in the debates and in ads.

Posted by: Hrothgar - L.I.B or SMOD (for the Children) at November 28, 2012 05:25 PM (Cnqmv)

40 Ace, your first couple of paragraphs are kind of incoherent. It's unlike you. Nap?

Posted by: Truman North at November 28, 2012 05:25 PM (I2LwF)

41 What I don't understand is why nobody in the totally not biased media is digging into this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

S-5 is the President's budget. It leaves us $900 billion in the hole this year. In 2017, we run a $600 billion budget IF AND ONLY IF our tax revenues increase nearly $1.5 trillion over 2012. Does anyone believe that'll happen? Meanwhile, Social Security costs soar over a trillion dollars per year. I'm 28. This isn't a pretty picture.

I try not to get panicky about politics, but I can't see anything in that chart but doom, in particular for folks my age. Granted, many deserve it, but some of us don't.

Posted by: Aaron at November 28, 2012 05:25 PM (Tlix5)

42 The other thing is look at our parties leadership and elder statesmen. Virtually all of them are in full surrender mode when it comes to taxes and amnesty.

If that isn't anti-conservative, I don't know what is.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:25 PM (vCK/R)

43 I don't support the "no rape exception." However, I can understand why some people feel that way. I don't feel threatened by it and I don't think their views will change the law.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (TYO2p)

44


Ace said: "Now, no one could do
worse than Romney -- he lost, after all. You can't do worse than
losing. So there would not be any particular bad outcome attached had
we nominated, let's say, Herman Cain."
Not true. The worse the top of the ticket does, the more House seats we lose. Imagine if we had lost the House too.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (E8Ag4)

45 >>>Well, I am not. Remember Sarah Palin? Of course you do. Because you HATE her.

She wasn't on the ballot in my state.

or any state.

But keep on keepin' on.

What level do you think she is? I mean, so long as we're indulging in Dungeons and Dragons fantasy stuff. Do you think she's 14th level, or maybe 20th? Is her Charisma an 18 or something godlike like a 22?

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (LCRYB)

46 We seriously underestimated the power of community organizing. Can't govern for shit, but they can roust the rabble. It's what they do.

OWS was an OFA joint from the get go. We laughed, we thought it was silly, but guess what, we use their vocabulary now. That was the whole point of that thing.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (/1U3u)

47 I would have loved to have nominated someone better.

But who?


Yup. The larger problem was that none of the candidates were stellar. Our system doesn't encourage the best and brightest to run for higher office. I'm not sure how to fix that.

Posted by: Marmo at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (QW+AD)

48 I came to believe that Romney was the best candidate of those who ran. Obviously he could have run a better campaign since he lost but ,even as a Perrykrishna, I can't say that Perry would have for sure won since he couldn't even get the nomination.

A problem I have is that people who I think would be good presidents are often not good candidates.

I support teh Fred the previous time and look how he did as a candidate.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:27 PM (evdj2)

49 The only people I blame for this last election debacle are the idiots who voted for obama. Fuck them all and may G-D have mercy upon their souls because all I would do is piss on them.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 28, 2012 05:28 PM (jE38p)

50 My problem? I want someone who talks and thinks like Bill Whittle, but he says he's not running.

Kind of hard to vote for someone who isn't running.



Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:28 PM (A98Xu)

51 Im over it. I don't think Reagan could have won with the current D+6 environment and the MFM screaming "racist" for four years.

Let it burn.

Posted by: Mr pink at November 28, 2012 05:28 PM (gILAa)

52 Ace doesn't hate Sarah Palin, Golan Globus.

He hates WOMEN.

Quit tying to make a personal attack out of generalized misogyny.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 28, 2012 05:28 PM (u6Ixe)

53 I mean, Chris Christie could have been a better *candidate* than Romney.

But he didn't run.

Ken Cuccinelli could be better.

But he didn't run.

We can write up a long list of candidates who might have done a better job, if not for the fact they weren't candidates at all.

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:29 PM (LCRYB)

54 The article talks up about how wrong it was to nominate Romney without
ever -- and this is the part of these arguments I find so childish --
without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better.


This.

Either make a case as to why one of the other candidates amongst those who chose to run would've been better, or STFU.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 05:29 PM (SY2Kh)

55
I don't know 'Who' our next candidate will be...

But we need to start screaming for "Fairness!" just like the liberals do.

No more Primary Debates with liberal moderators!
None.
Nada.

Posted by: wheatie at November 28, 2012 05:29 PM (CM59X)

56
It was a no-win situation.

Posted by: Invictus at November 28, 2012 05:29 PM (OQpzc)

57 Following a meeting with United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said that Sen. John Kerry, should he be nominated as secretary of state, would be much more easily confirmed than Rice, saying that there are “many questions that remain unanswered” about Rice’s response to the attacks in Benghazi.

??? This is what it has come down to? Kerry is seen as good alternative? G-D dam but we are fucked but good

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 28, 2012 05:29 PM (jE38p)

58 Concur. Who was it that would've been the one to make the arguments that weren't made or to have done better.

Romney lost a lot in part because of voter fraud but since it's crazy to even mention that, then let's put the blame on him for losing senate seats.

And dammit, here's where "hill to die on" cons like all of us need to face facts. Stupid ass rapebortion senators needed to be smacked down publiclly. Call it our Soulja moment. What, you think the dems don't get along with blacks since Clinton?

Anyway, Romney lost bad because he lost a ton of senate seats that were gimmees.

but romney was only bad in hindsight based on what I take to be bad strategy.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:29 PM (QxSug)

59 I was ABR, ABO early in the primaries and I even voted for Newt once it was clear that Romney was going to win the nod. Call it a protest vote.

That didn't stop me from promoting, donating to and defending Romney once the die was cast. You operate within the system or you stay home and play with yourself.

The Dems simply did a more thorough job of rounding up every brain dead voter they could find. Romney ran a conventional campaign and lost. So be it. LIB, and maybe the pain of a depression will wake people the f*ck up. but I doubt it.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (ccXZP)

60 "Fuck them all and may G-D have mercy upon their souls because all I would do is piss on them."

Where they are going has a far warmer climate.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (KCvsd)

61 45>>> Well, I am not. Remember Sarah Palin? Of course you do. Because you HATE her.

She wasn't on the ballot in my state.

or any state.

But keep on keepin' on.

What level do you think she is? I mean, so long as we're indulging in Dungeons and Dragons fantasy stuff. Do you think she's 14th level, or maybe 20th? Is her Charisma an 18 or something godlike like a 22?Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (LCRYB)
He meant that she was an example of a conservative who is hated by the Republican party and has been treated very badly by her putative allies, not a possible candidate for 2012. Sheesh.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (is6yP)

62 The choice was clear :

Romney = Successful businessman/governor
Obama = able to breathe without assistance

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (b+jI9)

63 27% of the Electorate is registered Republican...

40% now self identifies as Independent....

Obama won this election by getting 25% of the electorate to vote for him....

Romney did not even get REPUBLICANS to the polls... or he would have won... and a LOT of Idependents, like myself, are Conservative or Libertarian.... and tend to vote Republican as the lesser of two evils...

So... the GOP must ask... why did the REPUBLICANS not come out and support Romney.... perhaps because... he was a Squish?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (lZBBB)

64 >>>I would have loved to have nominated someone better.
But who?


Well Retrospectively, I think that losing the Obamacare debate and, allowing the big rich guy meme to take hold was very costly.

I think the three most winnable candidates other than Romney were. Newt, Tpaw and Perry. Though without giving them the chance to actually run it is hard to tell how any of them would have really done. But given how Romney did do, I really think nominating the guy who signed the prototype for Obamacare gave up too much of our hand. Newt would have been hell on the war on women, but in the end that punch landed soundly with Romney anyway. Perry would have taken a hit with teh texas stupids. But no worse than the "richie rich" hit Romney took. Tpaw likely would have squeeked out a win, not being the rich guy, not being the dumb guy, and not being the guy that cheated on two wives, and as he was Romney jr without the Romneycare albatross. But he bailed before we even had a chance to give him a chance.

So the best #2 given what I know now was Tpaw. So there you are ace you were right all along. I was wrong. I should have read the electorate better and supported Tpaw from the get go. Is that a sufficient helping of crow?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (TRNea)

65 Most of the best GOP candidates are in the incubator.
Jindal (he's my preference), Scott Walker, Rubio, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez-they're all on my radar.
But I will not be voting if Jeb Bush is the nominee. I think it's a privilege to vote and even when I'm not very interested I still do it anyway because, you know, a lot of better men than I have died so I could. But I will not vote for Jeb. Or Christie. Any Northeastern Republican, really. They have to compromise with Democrats and can't run away from their records in a national election.

Posted by: CozMark at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (P0AbR)

66 "I thought that his 'moderate New England tone' on social issues would
make him more appealing to swing voters, particularly women."

Romney had a perfect chance to demonstrate that.

It was when Todd Akin shoved his foot down his own throat to the knee, with his frankly insane comments about how if a woman becomes pregnant from a rape, it must not have been a "legitimate" rape.

Romney should have immediately flown to Missouri, and held a tarmac press conference right there and then, and said there was no place in the modern Republican party for someone holding those kinds of loopy views.

And those WERE Akin's actual views. Akin really did believe that women's lady parts have magical rape sperm detectors. The later Mourdock gaffe was a guy expressing a defensible belief in incredibly clumsy wording. But Akin meant what he said and said what he meant. And what he said and meant were bughouse nuts.

Romney had a golden opportunity to distance himself from the crazy-socon-agenda nonsense that the Democrats were trying and succeeding to link him to. Romney absolutely failed to sense and grasp that opportunity.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (ymG7s)

67 @48

He couldn't get the nomination because the process is not designed to get candidates like him the nomination it is designed to get the Doles, McCains's and Romenys the nomination, ie Moderate Squishes who will not fight.


Posted by: General Woundwort at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (RrD4h)

68 >>>Either make a case as to why one of the other candidates amongst those who chose to run would've been better, or STFU.

Isn't this a message that few prominent cob-loggers could stand to internalize as well?

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (GzATR)

69 The only candidate who might plausibly have done better than Romney was Pawlenty.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (E8Ag4)

70 What level do you think she is? I mean, so long as we're indulging in Dungeons and Dragons fantasy stuff. Do you think she's 14th level, or maybe 20th? Is her Charisma an 18 or something godlike like a 22?

Well, if you make fun of it, it seems silly, doesn't it.

Let me light that straw man on fire then kick the embers around the stage, though.

The statement made was NOT that Palin could have won or that she was a super candidate, but rather that the "establishment" Republicans HATE the conservatives. You rolled out Akin as a supposition, I made a clearer choice - Palin. She was the VP candidate, and yet....

How about this one, then, to get around the Palinfest. Allen West. The establishment Republicans loved him, right? He was a fighty fighter, and a twofer! Shit. Let's just redistrict him out of existence, because we have the power to do so.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (/1U3u)

71 I feel responsible for this loss, as I was one of the people who got on the Romney train midway

Once Perry was gone Romney was the only real choice, we don't want to admit it but America in 2012 isn't going to elect a social conservative like Santorum (spare me the assurances that it will because no, it won't) and Pawlenty would have been eaten alive by Obama surrogates constantly going after him. Losing wouldn't have been so bad if R's had shown some balls after, but they're racing to see who can cave faster so it's over.

Posted by: booger at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM (HI6wa)

72 Chris Christie? Really, that fat, stupid whore is the answer to the last election? SHIT!

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:31 PM (A98Xu)

73 The other thing we have to do is quit letting the MFM pick our candidate. Those endless non-debates hosted by the MFM were a huge mistake.


Our candidates should boycott the MFM including Fox who is no better than any of the rest of them. We an alphabet news organization can edit an interview video to transpose answers to questions and get away with it they demonstrte that they ARE the enemy.

Posted by: Vic at November 28, 2012 05:31 PM (YdQQY)

74 Heading home, but before I do, I will reiterate that America's default position is clearly to the left.

We will not retake anything unless and until we can somehow take back the schools, get candidates who are articulate, passionate boosters for conservatism, can get around the MFM and talk directly and frankly to the people.

And yes, Ace. The establishment of the Republican Party is at least, anti-conservative, and at worst enablers of Big Government statist Democrats.

Either the party is retaken or else it's a third party. I have resisted that for years but I now see that people like Boehner, McCain, Graham, Lugar, McConnell are either too inept or vested in the system to do us any good.

Homeward bound. You may attack at will!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:31 PM (vCK/R)

75 Stupid ass rapebortion senators needed to be smacked down publiclly.

Short of having him killed, I don't know what more smacking could have been done to Akin. He got no money from the party and his stated views were denounced by pretty much everyone in it.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:31 PM (evdj2)

76 Here's the only important take-away from that article:
"As someone who has networked with conservative activists for 35 years, I know for a fact that large segments of the tea party and Ron Paul movements did NOT vote for Romney and I also know that many evangelicals refused to support Romney as well. They knew that Romney was, deep down, a big government, socially liberal Republican and believed that electing Romney would set conservatives back decades. They believed that he would – under the mantle of “conservatism” – carry out a big government agenda instead of taking bold action to tame the deficit or get our economy growing again."
So apparently large segments of the tea party, Ron Paul movements and evangelicals refused to come out and believed that Obama was preferable to Romney. Thanks guys.

Posted by: zombywooofff at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (yXWrO)

77 i dunno, by the time we get through the primary and we've tried to destroy the other guys pick, and at the same time we have the media trying to pick Their opponent for their Party, and the covering of the media of any of their party's issues.
wht chance do we have?
considering all of that and the fact Romney was going to make them us all have 10 children, and not let women use tampax, and stole everyones paychecks from them, and killed all the jobs,
what chance do we have against
Mr President free stuff, President kill corporate rich people, and Mr You're a Racist if you don't lick my toes, and enjoy the divisive nature of my leadership.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (hX8cq)

78
Community Organizing = OFA = OWS = collectivist thinking and execution


The majority has been captured by collectivist thinking. The statement that says "we are using their vocabulary now" is 100% correct.

The collectivists have won the battle of semantics, and get to define what everything is in the public consciousness.

And that is a large part of why Romney lost.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (RFeQD)

79 >>>e meant that she was an example of a conservative who is hated by the Republican party and has been treated very badly by her putative allies, not a possible candidate for 2012. Sheesh.

Jesus, I have no idea what you're talking about and do not want to get into it.

At one point, in the far future, someone will have to explain to me it's so important that we work on behalf of a politician.

I knock the Cult of Obama. I will tell you straight up I find the Cult of Palin approaching it in terms of dreamlike bizarre idolatrousness.

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (LCRYB)

80
So, how does rehashing the same negative shit help anyone?

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (TYO2p)

81 "Our system doesn't encourage the best and brightest to run for higher office."

Posted by: Marmo at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (QW+AD)

Remember that chick you tried to kiss at a frat party on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving in 1983? You were hammered. She was hammered. But she didn't like you and said "no."

Run for office and that will be an attempted rape.

That's not just lack of encouragement....that is actively driving away anyone with a personality.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (GsoHv)

82

I, too, am tired of this.

How about this:

Romney lost because he was a decent, moral, charitable, intelligent, successful white man.

Imagine if he had been black, transgender, gay, or hispanic. Better yet, from the muzzie brohood. Shoe in.

I want Bill Whittle, but he won't play.



Posted by: le sigh at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (LpQbZ)

83 I thought Romney ran a solid campaign.

The problem is that 51% of Americans are either Moochers or Stupid.

Sadly, I have no idea how to change that. We just all get to suffer another four years of these people destroying the Greatness that is America. The last four years were notenlightening enough for these people. Maybe another four years will get them to wake up.

Focusing on my loved ones and myself for the time being........Bought an AR-15...buying some gold.......but also looking to grow my business and will find an unrelated reason to fire anyone in my organization who Idiscover voted foror supports Obama.

Fuck them.

Posted by: Kansas Gman at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (u4a/I)

84 BTW, the media will kill (abort, if you will) all those GOP bitches in the incubator.

signed, xxoo
the media.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (QxSug)

85 The politics of personal destruction is what the professional left lives for.

Look at how Sarah Palin was treated, how her children were treated, by the oh-so-tolerant left. Look at all the effort they put into demonizing Romney, and all they could come up with was, he's rich! But it was enough.

Not nearly as rich as Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, or George Soros, or all the other richest guys in the world who fund the democrats. But they're good guys cause they mouth socialist platitudes, so they can keep their money.

A normal person has to look at what would be done to his family if he/she runs for president, and think about it carefully.

Posted by: Boots at November 28, 2012 05:33 PM (neKzn)

86 It's because deep down, they don't care about you. They're politicians and all they want is POWER.

Republic BE DAMNED!!!

Posted by: © Sponge at November 28, 2012 05:33 PM (UK9cE)

87
I'm just gonna hope Perry does better next time with four years to prepare.

Paul Ryan has national exposure now, and after the economy tanks, he can say, "Told ya so."

Buck up. The future isn't gonna suck as much as it might seem at the moment.

Posted by: Invictus at November 28, 2012 05:33 PM (OQpzc)

88 What the social cons must do is remain silent on those issues until after the election. That is what the Dems do.



Run as a financial conservative until after the election. If you win then you can start pushing the social shit.

Posted by: Vic at November 28, 2012 05:33 PM (YdQQY)

89 Did DrewM write that article?

I can feel the smug satisfaction baking off him.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 28, 2012 05:33 PM (u6Ixe)

90 It's not that there are RINOs that makes them do this.
It's that they have a compulsion to "make the deal" that makes them RINOs.

I've seen these maniac "make the deal" businessmen, in big corporations who get their jollies from "making the deal." They really don't care what's in "the deal", but the fact that they made "the deal" is enough for them.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 28, 2012 05:33 PM (e8kgV)

91 Let's spend more time attacking donks and not us.

Let's write clear, concise, attributed rebuttals to all the donk lies and make them readily available to bitch slap our lying opponents.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:34 PM (TYO2p)

92
Unsheathes sword AND knife. Ok, since it can be looked up here, I said Romney was my last choice all along and I eventually settled on Newt. Now with 20/20 hindsight on what actually happened, I have little confidence that the voters would have went for any of our candidates over Oblabber.

Which in the end, is the most distressing. I think it is lost. We said it would be a clear choice of the type of country the people wanted and we got our answer.

So no blame from me on rinos, fi-cons, so-cons, or right wing blogs and commentators.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 28, 2012 05:34 PM (n/ubI)

93 Toby, there were commercials playing in the DMV area about how rapebortionists were "there they go again" and Romney didn't disagree (which he didn't (which was fine at the time because I thought he should stand atop the hill (but oops, strategy wise, it was Soulja time))).

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:34 PM (QxSug)

94 >>But he didn't run.

He can't run.

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:34 PM (dga6h)

95 We are screwed not because 51% of the electorate want free stuff, but because they have given up on individualism and personal responsibility, and begun the death embrace of collectivism.
__
I just interpreted the election results as the collective consciousness has shifted to being a nation of Losers.

The aggressive and optimistic American entrepreneurial spirit has been overcome by a nation of babies who need a Statist Daddy to take care of them. My parents left Italy...for this?

I might as well just move back there, at least I'll get to hear my name correctly pronounced. And no, I don't think Romney was a faulty candidate. The strategy could have been better, but he wasn't inherently bad.

Posted by: kallisto at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (jm/9g)

96 Now with 20/20 hindsight on what actually happened, I
have little confidence that the voters would have went for any of our
candidates over Oblabber.

Which in the end, is the most
distressing. I think it is lost. We said it would be a clear choice of
the type of country the people wanted and we got our answer.

So no blame from me on rinos, fi-cons, so-cons, or right wing blogs and commentators.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 28, 2012 05:34 PM (n/ubI)

yes.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (hX8cq)

97 HA! Two votes for Bill Whittle already!

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (A98Xu)

98 The statement made was NOT that Palin could have won or that she was a
super candidate, but rather that the "establishment" Republicans HATE
the conservatives.


The "establishment" doesn't hate conservatives.

It hates unelectable, attention-whoring con artists who fuck with the primaries so they can sell more books and raise their personal profile in order to help secure cushy Fox News gigs.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (SY2Kh)

99 I pretty much agree with Ace. Who else would have been better? Early on I feared the Romney campaign machine when they recruited and managed Meg Whitman. Even at a GOP event, she had the most bland, evasive answers to every issue. It was like she was a robot programmed by the self-hating Right. But I thought his own team would somehow be different. Guess not.

And the fact that hopefuls like Jindal are going out and saying the same dumb, guru-dictated crap about their own party doesn't give me much hope for the future.

Posted by: PJ at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (ZWaLo)

100
I like Perry, in fact I'm a huge supporter. But in 2016 he'll be 66 and he has a bad back.This is a physically tough business.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (TYO2p)

101 I think one can argue that Rick Santorum would have beena better candidate. I was never on the Saintorum train, I found his candidacy somewhat ridiculous at thetime, but I think I was wrong about that.We didnt nominate him, because we wanted to make this election about the economy and we thought weavoided give Democrats ammo for a culture war campaign. Guess what: Democrats ran against us as if we had nominated Santorum anyway. So we payed the price for being a socially conservative party -the Obama campaign made sure of that - while not having a candidatewho was able to cash in on the electoraladvantages thatsocial conservatismoffers.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (sMyKe)

102 Romney was, if you believe the polls, leading by 5 points near the election before Sandy. He had 40 swings in newspaper endorsements. He had peeps coming across the aisle publicly.

No one was switching TO obama.

Something happened.

His end game was weak, his strategy turned out to be flawed.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (QxSug)

103 I just came home from a local market, and the teen-aged boy working checkout was asking the skinny, douchey lib guy in front of me (he had an Obama sticker on his Volvo) why we couldn't drill for oil. The douche replied, "In two years we'll be supplying oil and gas to the entire world."

Douche walked away and the kid said, "What the heck is he even talking about? Can we impeach the president yet?"

Some parent should be proud.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (UOM48)

104 Though it wold be funny to watch Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich hash out the nomination in a foot race.

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:36 PM (dga6h)

105 no way it changes unless the population understands they are being bamboozled, and nothing we can do about that will them having control over every dmn'd thing.

and what they don't have control over, They will by the time Obama is done.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:36 PM (hX8cq)

106
The article talks up about how wrong it was to nominate Romney without ever -- and this is the part of these arguments I find so childish -- without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better.




The writer obviously never came here because we discussed this exact ad nauseum. Again, I hold one thing responsible for Romney's loss. The MSM.

Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 28, 2012 05:36 PM (DoZD+)

107 Well Retrospectively, I think that losing the Obamacare debate and, allowing the big rich guy meme to take hold was very costly.

Newt did not help by piling on with that.

But I kept saying that the most important polling question is "does the candidate care about people like you." And we all joked about Romney pretending to be human and getting an empathy emulator. Romney would no doubt be a better President than TFG. But that is an awfully low bar.

He, unfortunately wasn't a better candidate. And I don't think we had one that ran that would have beaten Obama on the empathy scale? Newt?

Perry got that with his "heartless" comment and that was the end of him.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:36 PM (/1U3u)

108 How about we stop letting Georgette Mosbacher and the GOP nomenklatura pick our candidates.
Georgette runs around with the country club repubs and threw their money behind Romney early on before the primaries. Taking control away from those people would help the cause immensely.

Posted by: CozMark at November 28, 2012 05:37 PM (BjOkm)

109 For those unwashed in the electorate who are not "in the know" policy wonks, blog commeters and commentators. You know, just those pop culture, facebook, iphone idiots, common every day pickup truck drivers and BMW soccer moms, I say Sarah Palin has more brand appeal and name recognition than George R. Mitt Mowser Romney. Who?????? OH! the mormon dude! Wasn't he, like, the partriarch on "Big Love" who ran the compound or something?


I declare: Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin. [ while Ace hisses and holds up his cross, clutches his garlic chain around his neck ]

Yep, for those who don't have a clue, never had a clue and aren't likely to get a clue anytime in the forseeable future, Sarah Palin.


Posted by: Sphynx at November 28, 2012 05:37 PM (j2McS)

110 Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM (RFeQD)

We're screwed because 25% of the electorate want free stuff.... and they VOTE.

Romney lost because he could not get REPUBLICANs and Conservatives excited about making it to the polls to vote for him.

Even if their were only 35% of the Electorate who were Conservative.... if they VOTED they would win....

Its the low turnout IMO.... which shows that people do not think their votes count.... and why???? Because they are told by the media that ONLY the swing States Matter.... by both the Media, and because thats where the Candidates spend ALL their time and money.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 05:37 PM (lZBBB)

111 I liked Ed Morrisseys' weekly compilation of Obama fuckups but it should have all been on one website for easy reference. Again, we need to be able to attack attack attack! Hell, we'll even use puppies if we have too. Unleash the puppehs of war!

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:37 PM (TYO2p)

112 Romney was a liberal. The whole Republican field was useless. Romney had no balls. He wouldn't call Barry a Socialist. Barry said he killed people. Country is finished as you once knew it. Face facts. Better to stay home and live off the state than bother to work. 1 private sector worker for 1 person on welfare plus those who work for government. Bush set the table with his Christian Socialism and useless war in Iraq. Plus he appointed queer John Roberts who screwed the country with his Obamacare decision. Conservatives lost and will not regain power until things collapse.

Posted by: Alans at November 28, 2012 05:38 PM (V2OI+)

113 Romney made mistakes tactically which probably cost him the election. A better run campaign would have never left an attack unanswered, never left the GOTV to a bunch of fucking idiots, etc. We all know the unfortunately long list.

But you are discussing strategic problems within the Republican party that are not solved so easily.

In fact, they aren't solvable.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 28, 2012 05:38 PM (GsoHv)

114 and strategy wise...if obama wanted to turn into Bill Clinton then Romney shoulda coulda woulda smacked him for being no where near what Bill Clinton was.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:38 PM (QxSug)

115 and Romney didn't disagree (which he didn't

He did, as a cursory google would reveal.

"Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday rebuked Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), a candidate for senate, for his assertion that "legitimate rape" victims rarely get pregnant.

"Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong," he told National Review Online. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive."

He added that his view was "entirely different" and that Akin's statement was "entirely without merit and and he should correct it."

He did not call on Akin to bow out of the race."

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:38 PM (evdj2)

116 It would have been nice if Romney would have expended as much energy attacked the Democrats in the General Election as he did attacking Republicans in the Primaries.

On the other hand, that supposes that the RNC actually wanted to win the general election.

Its so much easier to raise funds from the proles when you are out of power by writing pleas to save the country, than it is to actually do what your party's base wants you to do.

Besides, it was Mitten's turn.

In four years it will be some other progressive republican's turn to lose.

Posted by: Mark E at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (QA3KU)

117 Romney lost because he could not get REPUBLICANs and Conservatives excited


_______ / MIlani 2016

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (dga6h)

118 88 What the social cons must do is remain silent on those issues until after the election. That is what the Dems do.

The MFM will never allow it. It will always be prime in every interview and debate.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (TRNea)

119 But the point of this thread is "if not romney, then who?"

Maybe Tpaw.

Perry self destructed.

Everyone else was basically a sara palin which even one true conservatives like me would be scared to run.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (QxSug)

120 Mosbacher has huge boobs. Jeri Thompson has huge boobs. What's with these repug women and their massive melons?

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (TYO2p)

121 fcol, Palin!

like her or hate her, she's in peoples heads.



Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (hX8cq)

122 Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:35 PM (A98Xu)

Three!

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (lZBBB)

123 It ;looks like when all the votes are counted Romney will lose the popular vote by 3.6-3.7%, or about half of Obama's 7.2% margin over McCain.

I'm not sure there is any Republican, even among those who didn't run, who could have done almost 4 points better than Romney. Maybe Rubio or Rice.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (E8Ag4)

124 How about this one, then, to get around the Palinfest. Allen West.
The establishment Republicans loved him, right? He was a fighty
fighter, and a twofer! Shit. Let's just redistrict him out of
existence, because we have the power to do so.


Typical BS example blaming the DC "Establishment" for something they had no power over. The FLORIDA state party controlled redistricting in Florida, not the Establishment.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (6jFGb)

125 I gotta say i still think Romney would have won if he had carried what he did in the first debate over to the second and third instead of just playing it safe (and if Christie hadn't publicly slobbered all over O's knob like he did) but again, it is what it is.

Posted by: booger at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (HI6wa)

126 dammit toby, why are you ruining my argument with facts.

Well, we still got rapebortion blood mud on our faces election night

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:40 PM (QxSug)

127 Imagine if he had been black, transgender, gay, or hispanic. Better yet, from the muzzie brohood. Shoe in.

I want Bill Whittle, but he won't play.


Bill Whittle is a gay black transgendered Muslim? Who knew.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:40 PM (/1U3u)

128 Here's the rub. We had conservative candidates during the primaries. But they were thrown away for very shallow reasons. Any one of them would have been 1000 times better than Dear Leader. Even Huntsman.

As long as people look at the superficial (and I'm looking at many of y'all when I say this) and not the record or core values, we'll lose elections as conservatives.

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 05:40 PM (WjPKH)

129 "All this talk is bullshit. We lost because 51% of the people want their free shit. End of story. Doesn't matter if it was Romney or anyone else."

I realize most of us have been taking this as a given on this site, but (at the risk of starting a comment war) after cooling off for a few weeks I am not so sure that statement is true. Yes, I suspect a decent number of people voted for Obama because they want to make sure the government goodies don't stop, but i think its way too simplistic to assume that most of Obama's voters voted for "free shit". Is there any evidence of that?

My gut is the each party starts with a core of 40% of the voters no matter what. You end up fighting over the remaining 20%. Some of that 20% may not have liked Romney personally, they may have decide to stick with the devil they knew, they may have a host of good, bad or no reasons for voting for Obama.

But if we seriously think 51% of the people are now fully and irretrievably committed to the "free shit" platform -- there is no point in trying anymore. We should join the free shit army ourselves.

I am just not that pessimistic. We've lost elections before. My sense is that this was just another election that rode more on candidates not philosophy. I don't think it was a fundamental seismic shift in the electorate's philosophy. But I could be talking out of my butt.

Posted by: nc at November 28, 2012 05:40 PM (Cxl7g)

130 he had an Obama sticker on his Volvo) why we couldn't drill for oil. The douche replied, "In two years we'll be supplying oil and gas to the entire world."

Does said know understand that there will be fracking involved?

Yes, the parents of that kid should be proud.

Posted by: fluffy at November 28, 2012 05:40 PM (4pSIn)

131 my hope is we find someone Like Newt, without some of His sillier ideas and baggage.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (hX8cq)

132
Malor moves to DC and now is in the giant lady boob camp. Free yourself, Malor! Unhook the bra!!!!11!!!

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (TYO2p)

133 Akin and Mourdock may have gotten their asses whipped, but so did Linda McMahon, George Allen, Josh Mandel, Tommy Thompson, and all the other so called moderates.

And yet it's always the conservatives that get the blame. Every time we run a moderate we lose. Reagan won in two massive landslides.

Yet the party is correct in attacking conservatives?

I am now officially steamed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (vCK/R)

134 I'm tired of the blood letting. The election is over and we lost. Romney was a decent, honest man and he lost to Chicago style politics. Never underestimate the the depths your opposition will sink to get what they want. From the beginning the Obama campaign was geared to run against Romney, they were ready for it and deployed every dirty trick in the book.

The next person brave enough to throw their hat in the ring better be ready to shove back twice as hard and kick their opponent in the ribs while they are down.

Oh and no more RINOS, no more Akins, etc. Palin is a nice, smart woman but she would have been steamrolled by the O campaign.

Posted by: mpfs at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (iYbLN)

135
I declare: Sarah Palin.





The MSM did to Romney what they did to Palin. And the American people swallowed it.

Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (DoZD+)

136 >>>Perry got that with his "heartless" comment and that was the end of him.

You can't look your base in the eye, insult them, and expect to win a primary.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (TRNea)

137 The MFM will never allow it. It will always be prime in every interview and debate.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM (TRNea)

That is why the MFM should be boycotted by the candidates on our side.

Posted by: Vic at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (YdQQY)

138 Jesus, I have no idea what you're talking about and do not want to get into it.

At one point, in the far future, someone will have to explain to me it's so important that we work on behalf of a politician.

I knock the Cult of Obama. I will tell you straight up I find the Cult of Palin approaching it in terms of dreamlike bizarre idolatrousness.

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (LCRYB)
I meant that no one was suggesting (at least so far on this thread) that we should have nominated Palin. The original poster was responding, rather rudely I admit, to your skepticism that a significant part of the Republican establishment hates conservatives, and provided an example of a conservative who has been treated very badly by said part of the Republican establishment. I am not all that big a fan of Palin, but her treatment was pretty shabby.In other words, your reading comprehension sucks today and you are being a bit of a dick, enough to annoy someone who otherwise has no dog in this fight.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 28, 2012 05:42 PM (is6yP)

139 obama , cuz he kares about peeps like me.


he shows it too, by making sure you can't find a job provide for your children or afford your utility bills.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:42 PM (hX8cq)

140
that idiot Berg lost by 3K votes

that's just plain ineptitude

Posted by: soothsayer at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (jUytm)

141 Did Bruce call? Why won't he call me?! Please Mister Springsteen, call me back! I'm your donut - scented New Jersey man whore!

Posted by: Chris Christie at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (wIgpo)

142 I don't have any answers because the election outcome still doesn't make sense to me. We have gas prices up the ass, trillions in debt, no jobs, lay offs everywhere, pathetic foreign affairs, a stupid President who does NOTHING but play golf, delegate and make mistakes. And he likes to surround himself with radical lefties to make policy.

Our worthless President ran against a strong family man, a successful business man, a decent, hard working, American loving man.

How we lost is a mystery to me. A sad mystery.

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (A98Xu)

143 if obama won by 3.6% then incumbency is an awesome advantage. or systemic voter fraud.

but then again, I believe there was strategic, directed voter fraud.

Those Mexican shanty towns in rural california victor davis hansen talks about where EVERYONE is on welfare. They must have also voted 100% for Obama.

And those VDH hispanic shanty towns where there's only fed government handouts? that's the fabled hispanic demographic change, yo. Just like ObamaPhoneLady is the black community voter, yo. How do you plan on reaching those rather entrenched voter farms.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (QxSug)

144 >>Like Newt, without some of His sillier ideas and baggage.

How are you going to survive on the moon without bringing along some baggage?

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (dga6h)

145 This is really fucking simple, if you want a conservative candidate then the debates must be held in conservative venues with conservative moderators.

The primary schedule should be from the most Republican leaning state to the least.

Period. End of Story!

But we don't do that.

As eman says, we keep nominating weak shit because that is what the process is designed to do and the donks mow it down.


LIB

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 28, 2012 05:44 PM (RrD4h)

146 Romney was a poor candidate and we knew he was when we nominated him. Even his strongest supporters like Ms Coulter were warning us that Romney would lose to Obama.

After all, Mccain beat Romney with a fraction of the money and no executive experience.

Here's why I am not offering 'I told you so's.

I wanted to nominate Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney didn't even break a sweat crushing Perry's campaign.

Do I honestly think we would have beaten Obama had we nominated Rick Perry, or Newt Gingrich, or the other even more ridiculous options? No.

Romney actually was, in some respects, the best candidate we had.

We need someone with political skill, successful executive experience, and honest principles. Principles that clearly show why we're on the wrong path, utterly, and plot a path out. I don't think Romney really had that latter part at all. But the other candidates didn't have the whole package either.

Posted by: Dustin at November 28, 2012 05:44 PM (D9999)

147 134
I'm tired of the blood letting. The election is over and we lost. Romney
was a decent, honest man and he lost to Chicago style politics. Never
underestimate the the depths your opposition will sink to get what they
want. From the beginning the Obama campaign was geared to run against
Romney, they were ready for it and deployed every dirty trick in the
book.





THIS^^^^a million times this

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 05:44 PM (UOM48)

148 garret, i know!

aha

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:44 PM (hX8cq)

149 Gray Fox,

Okay, sorry to be a dick. But I do not understand this "Shabby Treatment" crap. It's like Hitler's Stabbed in the Back claim. I do not understand precisely what we are all supposed to do to bail Sarah Palin out. I do not understand why I am expected to work so diligently on behalf of a politician. I expect the reverse-- that they should work on behalf of me, and that they should be providing SOLUTIONS to political problems, not creating political problems for themselves which I and others are then supposed to solve.

she quit after two and a half years of a govenorship. Apart from that she was a small-town mayor. She quit the one job that elevated her to presidential level. Enough already.

Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (LCRYB)

150 Is there any noise about Allen West running?

Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (DoZD+)

151 "27
Basically if the primary schedule had been weighted from the most
conservative states to the least and you had limited the debates to
actual conservative outlets FOX, etc. You wold have gotten either Perry
or Gingrich.

But instead we had a million debates where all of
the questions were framed from the liberal perspective by the mostly
liberal moderators, by the way the midget greek sowed the seeds for the
War on Woman GOP is pro rape war in a primary debate, where the
candidates destroyed each other."

___________________

Yep. Which 2 states decide the GOP candidate? NH and IA, both states that are now solid, reliably blue states. Stupid party as usual.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (HDgX3)

152 (D9999)

Love your hash.

Posted by: Herman Cain at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (dga6h)

153 @138 - What (s)he said.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (/1U3u)

154 No one who was a candidate for the Republican nomination should be allowed within ten feet of 2016.

New faces, conservative/libertarian ideas.

Posted by: mpfs at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (iYbLN)

155 If the Republicans do not change the primary schedule next time I will sit it out.

Posted by: Vic at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (YdQQY)

156
We had a couple of fun threads and now we are back to the same self-destructive bullshit. I'm sensing a trend...

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (TYO2p)

157 133 Akin and Mourdock may have gotten their asses whipped, but so did Linda McMahon, George Allen, Josh Mandel, Tommy Thompson, and all the other so called moderates. And yet it's always the conservatives that get the blame. Every time we run a moderate we lose. Reagan won in two massive landslides. Yet the party is correct in attacking conservatives? I am now officially steamed.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:41 PM (vCK/R)

______________


I'm not saying one side is more to blame than the other, but Akin and Mourdock definitely had a negative effect on the entire party. I'm not sure you can say the same about say George Allen or Tommy Thompson.

Posted by: Uncle Milty at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (YsFN3)

158 But at some point I guess we're going to have to have this argument.

Boy, you really *don't* read the comments here, do you? This is every day.

PS the "RINOs" bring the argument up at least as often and are at least as dickish about it.

And pretty much this whole asshole tornado is Why We Lose. The dems fuck each other over for power, the Republicans do it for shits and giggles and create massive resentment and apathy in the process.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (bxiXv)

159
let's talk about polls, shall we?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (jUytm)

160 TPaw--v. Milani-see the difference?

Pawlenty--had zero --what's that word?

Boobs.

No wait...

Charisma.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (r2PLg)

161 I got aboard the Mitt express late and hesitantly. But I thought he ran a pretty good campaign.
I'm not sure a win was even possible given the stupid shit that Americans today connect with (Big Bird, binders, free birth control, pay for my abortion)

Posted by: Warden at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (HzhBE)

162 Fox is not conservative. They are just as bad as the rest.

Posted by: Vic at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (YdQQY)

163
The whole "Republicans are a socially conservative party" would have gone on whether it was Romney or whomever - that's right.

Because the Obama campaign was based on fundamental class war themes. This is part of the class war theme. The repetive commercials I saw in Ohio about how evil "Bain Capital" was, and the testimonials of people who lost their jobs because of "Bain".


What will endure long after this election is the permanent change in the American psyche regarding how we view ourselves as individuals. What made us unique and exceptional was greatly eroded in the last four years and this election. This also happened under FDR in the '30's, but we shook a lot of that off later. I don't know if we can shake it off again.

If the country really does go off the cliff financially, and the people actually begin to turn on Obama (which is really not a hopeful thing at all), there may be a return to some prior beliefs.

I think we toddle along like this for years to come, and Obama skips out of the Presidency and really never is blamed for all the heartache and damage he has done. He is truly an evil and vile man.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers at November 28, 2012 05:46 PM (RFeQD)

164 ::::Yep, for those who don't have a clue, never had a clue and aren't likely to get a clue anytime in the forseeable future, Sarah Palin.::::

Sarah Palin is a fucking subject in search of a verb and a direct object.

"Living rent-free in their heads! Skib-a-da-fuckin-do-WHEEEE!!!!"

Seriously. How many fucking times can you repeat the same bullshit before examining what you're actually saying?

OBAMA WON. What fucking effect did the mighty Grizzlycuda have on the election?

***SPOILER ALERT***

Fuck-all. That's how much stroke she has. Fuck. All.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 28, 2012 05:47 PM (u6Ixe)

165 134

I'm tired of the blood letting. The election is over and we lost. Romney

was a decent, honest man and he lost to Chicago style politics. Never

underestimate the the depths your opposition will sink to get what they

want. From the beginning the Obama campaign was geared to run against

Romney, they were ready for it and deployed every dirty trick in the

book.



Yes, there is wisdom in this. The O campaign, aided and abetted by the usual suspects in the BM (bowel movement or big media, your choice)

We need a super sneaky, misunderestimated campaigner who is a minority and who can out fox the non-Fox media.

Posted by: Sphynx at November 28, 2012 05:47 PM (j2McS)

166 I'm well-fed, rested and ready for the next presidential debates.

Posted by: Candy Crowley at November 28, 2012 05:47 PM (UOM48)

167 @ace - Jeebus dude no one is saying you have to go out and cheerlead for her. And don't pretend that the hating only started in the 2012 primary season, or after she resigned as Governor. There were plenty of establishment Republicans who hated her when she was the VP candidate.

So, anyway, I gave you a graceful out by moving on to Allen West, but you find the Palin strawman much more enticing to embrace. My fault for mentioning her, I guess.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 05:47 PM (/1U3u)

168 Democrats lie in every election. They say we are capitalists. They say we support the military. They say all sorts of shit. And then when they win they do the exact opposite. But since Americans have the attention span of 5 minutes, by next election all is forgotten and the dance starts again.

This is what we need to do as well. Lie. Lie. Lie. Tell people they will get more Obamaphones. Tell people they will tax the rich at 175%. Then just don't do it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 05:48 PM (HDgX3)

169 Ace - You're wrong to say "... no one could do worse than Romney -- he lost, after all. You can't do worse than losing." Republicans retained control of the House and only lost 2 Senate seats. Romney ran ahead of the Republican Senate candidates in Indiana and Missouri, at least, maybe more.

Had Gingrich or Santorum been nominated, I believe the GOP congressional losses would have been much greater.

Posted by: phillyboy at November 28, 2012 05:48 PM (Z0Feo)

170 From an earlier comment I wrote in one of Gabe's threads:

I happen to think a personally appealing candidate would have beaten Obama whether s/he was Democrat-lite or conservative.

Or.

A real conservative (non-Dem-lite) who could actually go against Obama where he was weakest. We couldn't do that at all with Romney.

Both of those reasons make me think Rick Perry would have fared better than Romney. He was a nice, personally appealing, warm guy who could attack, say, O-care and big-government-ism directly.
. . .

Where Gabe and I agree is personal appeal. We have to have a candidate who educate voters about the bennies of limited government while not turning them off by appearing aloof, uncaring, and "from a different class.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 28, 2012 05:48 PM (Iyg03)

171 >>>So apparently large segments of the tea party, Ron Paul movements and evangelicals refused to come out and believed that Obama was preferable to Romney. Thanks guys.

I've made a vow i will whom I can that used some little excuse for reelecting TFG and make sure the hounds of hell that come to take my liberty for being an activist, come for theirs as well. If you will not take a political stand for freedom and force upon us the ultimatum, you don't deserve to live in peace and freedom.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 05:48 PM (TRNea)

172 New Hampshire and Iowa can GFT.

Time to enter the 21st century.

Posted by: mpfs at November 28, 2012 05:48 PM (iYbLN)

173 There is one thing worse than losing like Romney did: losing so badly you kill all the down ballot candidates as well. Romney often outperformed GOP candidates, so he wasn't a drag. Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum not only would have lost, they'd have cost the GOP the House and another three or four senate seats.

After Pawlenty dropped out, I went with Romney. There just wasn't anybody else to go with. Did Romney underperform? Hell, yes. Then again, he was chained to a number of bad facts, including the Bush foreign policy, which Ace has covered before.

Posted by: Schaeffer at November 28, 2012 05:48 PM (ZN0re)

174 I think Romney was winnable, He did not push through on Benghazi or F and F,
I believe if the population (not the true lefties) but the regular population knew what was actually being done in their name, they would be sickened.

still the media.
but for the campaign and Debate, I believe Romney was trying to not look ??? was He told to let go of it?

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:49 PM (hX8cq)

175
Remember celebrating the polls as if we won something? Remember that?

Remember celebrating the fact that Mitt was only down 3 points in PA as he closed the gap from double digits!! Remember that?

Remember doing endzone dances when polls showed Mitt only 5 points down in Wisconisn!?!? Remember that.


Talk about bush league...


Never. Ever. Again.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 28, 2012 05:49 PM (jUytm)

176 I was hoping Fred Thompson would swoop-in and save the day, but ...no.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 28, 2012 05:49 PM (b+jI9)

177 Can't offer a candidate besides Whittle, however, every R candidate should refuse to answer non policy questions.

"How old do you think the earth is, Senator Rubio"?

"Next question, no one knows for sure and it's not pertinent to my policy making."

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:49 PM (A98Xu)

178 If I had to hear "swing states" One.More.Fucking.Time my head was going to explode.

Jeebus. The coal and ship building states voted for Barky.

Idiots.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 05:50 PM (UOM48)

179 Obama had a few things Carter did not...

The Race Card.

Race Allegiance.

And--a media that acted like Obama's wet nurse.

I'm not really sure Reagan could have beat him.

But at least Reagan ran on National Security--and The Economy.

Although--the media played defense on that for Obama--

Big time.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 05:50 PM (r2PLg)

180 Romney had a chance, would he have FOUGHT for the job instead of taking punches like he was some kind of gladiator.

We needed Rocky and we got Gerry Cooney.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 28, 2012 05:50 PM (UK9cE)

181 ....The fire rises.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at November 28, 2012 05:50 PM (a3DpQ)

182 let's talk about polls, shall we?

Better still, let us discuss the Sumatran lar gibbon.

Posted by: fluffy at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (4pSIn)

183 look, all we have to do is follow the LiB schedule that we GOP followed with FDR.

Wait for WWIII, find popular successful general to run against a democrat who is not TFG/FDR and win.

Since Obama clipped Petraues, we're kinda screwed but that's how it goes. So, we go from FDR landmark win in 1930s to Nixon's 1972 victory.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (QxSug)

184 I've still got my "Rick Perry, bitches!" sticker in a desk drawer.

*sigh*

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (UOM48)

185 Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:49 PM (A98Xu)

Uh.... that pretty much what he DID say... he just used way too many words to say it.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (lZBBB)

186 Well ok Ace, you're probably right. But FUCK RINOS anyway. I'm a Tea Party Libertarian now.

Posted by: Dearly departed at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (CS787)

187 Nice Gerry Cooney ref.

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (dga6h)

188 close. the. primaries!

esp the early ones. closed primaries, red states, stop the madness!

the Rs need to take control of the primary process

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (J6kXj)

189 Also, RNC, take control of who moderates the debates, where they take place, and no audience members. Do whatever you have to. Have some balls perhaps.

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (A98Xu)

190 It's a silly bit of positioning which invites opponents to defend a
flawed man, or a flawed position, while one nobly argues for The
Hypothetical Ideal, and the Ideal is undefined so it can be one thing to
one person and another thing to someone else.


Isn't there a point at which the method of picking a candidate should be examined? Is that a 'silly' thing to do? Why are we only allowed to discuss the events just prior to the primary season? We're not allowed to notice that a better candidate didn't run for some reason?

We lost and there are probably more than a couple reasons why but it sounds 'silly' not to investigate them. By insisting all examination be confined to the Seven Dwarves that sprung ex-nihilo is obtuse.

And his point still stands unaddressed: if we won in 2010 on a platform of smaller government, why did we expect to win with a champion of bigger government?

How is Dem-Lite™ ever going to be an effective strategy? It seems to be a massive failure from all views.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (JEpGb)

191
gibbon?

that's in the monkey family, yes?

No. Fucking. Monkeys.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 28, 2012 05:52 PM (jUytm)

192 I will tell you straight up I find the Cult of Palin approaching it in terms of dreamlike bizarre idolatrousness.
Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (LCRYB)

Her tits right? You're talking about her tits. I get it.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 28, 2012 05:52 PM (t06LC)

193 I think that to win the next election, the Republicans need to start the campaign now. I have been baffled for the last four years why the Republicans were not running ads against Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Simple ads, short ads, cheap ads on reality TV shows, ads that simply show the Democrats, saying things, things that turned out to be lies. It's not like there is any shortage of them to be shown.

Were are our Monopoly Moneybag Guys?

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (evdj2)

194 This is exactly like that one episode of Friends...

Posted by: garrett falls on the sword... at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (dga6h)

195
that idiot Berg lost by 3K votes



that's just plain ineptitude

Posted by: soothsayer at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (jUytm)
That might be another Senate seat that Akin/Mourdock cost us. It was very close and he was running against a woman.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (E8Ag4)

196 My thoughts on this whole discussion:

No one could have won once our primary went on so long and was so divisive. Obama demonized Mitt from about April on. Mitt couldn't access his money for ads until after the convention. This same scenario would have played out if Perry (my original favorite) had won.

Also, we had too many debates, and those debates were run by people who are our ENEMIES. GOP primary debates should be run by the RNC, and should be televised on C-SPAN and by live stream. Any candidate accepting a debate invitation from one of the networks should be automatically disqualified. Period.

Also, I want to tell you guys that with OFA still up and running, and with the personality cult still in play, I think they will nominate Michelle Obama for 2016.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (GoIUi)

197 149Gray Fox,

Okay, sorry to be a dick. But I do not understand this "Shabby Treatment" crap. It's like Hitler's Stabbed in the Back claim. I do not understand precisely what we are all supposed to do to bail Sarah Palin out. I do not understand why I am expected to work so diligently on behalf of a politician. I expect the reverse-- that they should work on behalf of me, and that they should be providing SOLUTIONS to political problems, not creating political problems for themselves which I and others are then supposed to solve.

she quit after two and a half years of a govenorship. Apart from that she was a small-town mayor. She quit the one job that elevated her to presidential level. Enough already.Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:45 PM (LCRYB)
Idon't get the whole Palinista thing myself, for many of the same reasons.I was just trying to point out that you had misunderstood what the original poster was trying to say, to hopefully keep the discussion on track.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (is6yP)

198 "...he just used way too many words to say it."

That's the friggen problem. Like that Akin idiot....shut up.

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (A98Xu)

199 Nice Gerry Cooney ref.

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:51 PM (dga6h)


Thank you. Thank you very much.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (UK9cE)

200 Ace, no need to apologize. I've been sick ever since the election and not because I was a big Romney guy. I came to believe...as did many on this forum...that Romney had momentum and had run a competent campaign. I still can't get over the size differential in the crowds during the last few weeks of the campaign, nor the obvious difference in demeanor. bewtween Zero and Romney. I kept double and triple checking all the available info to make sure that I wasn't deluding myself. I predicted as large a Romney win as you did.
And apparently, not only did Romney not make the sale, people certainly did not look as negatively at Obama as I do (and did). Which stuns me the most. Even with the MFM cover, I just don't see the appeal of Obama , he really has no positve accomplishments except being born half black. And anyone who paid even a little attention had to see that whatever Romney's shortcomibngs, he woudl have been infinitely better than another 4 years of ....this. To me, anyway, it's inconceiveable that anyone of good will would sit the election out.
But I was wrong, I'm done arguing for now, the Let It Burncrowd is looking awfully tempting.
If I want to apologize to anyone, it's the non-troll realists (formerly known as "Eyeores").

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (YmPwQ)

201
I'm not saying one side is more to blame than the other, but Akin and Mourdock definitely had a negative effect on the entire party.




If it hadn't been Akin and Murdoch, I guarantee the MSM would nave continued scouring the surface of the planet until they dug up some random comment made by a conservative or simply pulled it out of thin air. That's what they do. Make up crap out of nothing and feed it until it's huge and make it the new big thing. I'm telling you, IT'S THE FREAKIN' MSM!

Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 28, 2012 05:54 PM (DoZD+)

202 Start preparing the battlefield now. We don't even have to have a candidate to do that. Negative info works. Use it.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:54 PM (evdj2)

203 I don't think it's really a matter of RINOs vs. TruCons.

first off, Romney's not a RINO. Sure he's not Mr. Conservative either, but I think he would've governed fairly conservatively, within the extents he thought he could.

Second, like you say, the "trucons" in the primary kinda sucked. You could certainly make the case that Santorum may've had more appeal to certain Republican voters skeptical of a guy like Romney's image, but that wouldn't've translated into a win/closer loss. With Gingrich and others I just feel like it's a matter of people thinking "most conservative" = "best anti-Obama bombthrower." I mean substantively, what did Gingrich offer that was so much more conservative than Romney. he would've even had the same for the mandate/against the mandate issue had he somehow got the nomination.

it's clear it's a combination of things, the harder-edged aspects of "trucons" in the GOP (not necessarily Romney) turning off parts of the electorate, as well as a general "RINO" image problem, i.e. this big meanie plutocrat who Doesn't Care About Us, which probably depressed turnout in certain Republican-leaning demographics.

I think the calls to completely change the GOP from certain people are too soon though. Take Clinton for example, he ran as a "New Democrat" but governed as a conventional liberal, within the limits of political realities. Of course the country also turned against him two years in as a result, but I think it's entirely possible for the GOP to present itself in a different way without ditching its core ideas.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 05:54 PM (60GaT)

204 I think Miss Marple is right.

Evita II will run - and win - in 2016

I'll be on the beach, I don't mind red water.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 05:54 PM (J6kXj)

205 What we REALLY need to do, is change the Electoral System... so that each Congresional District is a mini election for THAT Electoral Vote, then whoever wins the State gets the Two Senator Votes....

Stop allowing a FEW States to dictate the Election... make it a NATIONAL Election... where the candidates MUST run Country Wide.

Make People think their Votes COUNT... and they will then vote...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (lZBBB)

206 to hopefully keep the discussion on track.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 28, 2012 05:53 PM (is6yP)


Well, since "the track" was bloody-minded civil war, I'm thinking distraction would be a better tactic.

HEY, LOOK, IT'S A FUCKING SQUIRREL!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (bxiXv)

207 Yeah, so like obama, I managed to take the left and the right of the 2012 election. I predicted FDR part II the Great Depression 2.0 stutterclusterfuckery as well as the great white hope Romney pulling a Rocky over Stutter Lang.

nope. whatever the reason, we lost. FDR is back and ready to rumble.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (QxSug)

208 re: "without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better"

Because the answer is "all of them." They all would have lost, because Obama was always unbeatable by anybody, but in supporting any other loser candidate, my-party-right-or-wrong types wouldn't have had to sell out on *everything*, and they wouldn't have had to shit on *everybody* "beneath" them. Romney held *no* conservative positions (except his on-again-off-again flirtations with some "socon" positions that are *supposedly* poisonous), he's a totally weird asshole nobody likes or trusts, and he came into the race a proven electoral loser at every level.

*All* the other candidates were superior. Even Trump was better. Ted Bundy was a more appealing Republican--while he was on the electric chair.

re: "Quit tying to make a personal attack out of generalized misogyny."

As a [whatever the highest D&D "+{number}" thingy is]-level misogynist, I can assure you that Ace isn't one of us.

He's a woman.

Posted by: oblig. at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (cePv8)

209 Evita II will run - and win - in 2016



kill
me
now

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (UOM48)

210 gibbon? that's in the monkey family, yes?

Gibbons are apes. We have been over this before.

Speciesist.

Posted by: fluffy at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (4pSIn)

211 Well, I can say that I don't think I've seen a thread in awhile that had THIS many long posts in it.

I haven't read half of this shit......I'm Breitbart, but I'm not even reading the comments, either.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 28, 2012 05:55 PM (UK9cE)

212 Somehow the dems manage to get all their various groups under one tent: Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, etc. Groups that have open hostility for one another. Yet come voting time they band together. We can't get two people on opposite sides of the abortion issue to get near a tent much less under one.

Posted by: NCKate at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (V1oS8)

213 Also, RNC, take control of who moderates the
debates, where they take place, and no audience members. Do whatever you
have to. Have some balls perhaps.

Posted by: mare

Exactly.

Have big balls or big boobs. Go for the throat and never apologize.

The one thing we have going for us is the Dem bench is old and I mean Methuselah old. Joe Biden against Hillary Clinton? Now that's entertainment. A brain addled white VP against a lousy, white SOS. Good luck Dems.

At least we have some young guns on our bench.

Posted by: mpfs at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (iYbLN)

214 CNN amuses me these days with their constant "concern" about how the Republicans are thinking. They keep having Republican Lite talking heads on and asking them questions about how the party is going to compromise with His Majesty.

Posted by: Sphynx at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (j2McS)

215 primaries should all be on the same day....period....during the primary fight as hard as you want for you candidate with the understanding that who ever wins it is the guy/gal you support unless you want the other side to win....because our candidate, whom ever it is should at least be better than the lefts.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (GVxQo)

216 but I'm not even reading the comments, either.

You should read mine.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (evdj2)

217 I really think this just has to do with culture. There are a ton of people who don't know the slightest thing about current events and are typically non-voters, but they connect with culture. Obama has been able to filter outside of the political sphere and into the culture and connect with these people because that's really all they know in terms of politics (plus he's the president, he has name recognition by default). All these peopleneeded was someone to get them to the polls -- the Obama campaign made damn sure that they did because they knew they couldn't rely on even semi-informed voters.

Posted by: Uncle Milty at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (YsFN3)

218 Posted by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM (LCRYB)

I agree, except for one thing. Palin has a nice backside, lovely boobs, and nice legs.

Much, much more attractive than TFG.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 28, 2012 05:57 PM (GsoHv)

219 You thought, you thought, you thought eight things this year, Ace.

Posted by: Knemon at November 28, 2012 05:57 PM (ZPhyj)

220 Gibbons.
Pre-hensile tails, or no?

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 05:57 PM (dga6h)

221 ...and he would have won basically no matter what because of his ability to get these suckers to the polls.

Posted by: Uncle Milty at November 28, 2012 05:57 PM (YsFN3)

222 214
CNN amuses me these days with their constant "concern" about how the
Republicans are thinking. They keep having Republican Lite talking heads
on and asking them questions about how the party is going to compromise
with His Majesty.



Don't get me started on Kathleen Parker's "concern." Scrunt.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 05:57 PM (UOM48)

223 Note, any comment that begins "what we need to do" that is followed by "redesign society" or "change the rules" is not helpful.

The rules DONT apply to democrats and will be applied humorlessly to conservatives.

I bet the next GOP Senate majority leader, if he were to say he has a mouse in his pocket that the Donk president candidate hasn't paid taxes in 10 years? Yeah, he'll be successfully sued for slander.

As for society? man we are so fucked.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (QxSug)

224 Turkey has lifted a ban on female students wearing headscarves in schools providing religious education, in a move drawing criticism from secularists who see it as fresh evidence of the government pushing an Islamic agenda.

Education has been one of the main battlegrounds between religious conservatives, who form the bedrock of support for the AK party of the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and secular opponents who accuse him of imposing Islamic values by stealth.

Stealth my ass. Turkey is on it's way to a lost cause and Egypt, well Egypt already is. Well to go obama

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (jE38p)

225 oh yeah....piss on all the rinos....i've sucked it up election after election to vote for who you deem acceptable....it's high time you stfu about social cons........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (GVxQo)

226 primaries should all be on the same
day....period....during the primary fight as hard as you want for you
candidate with the understanding that who ever wins it is the guy/gal
you support unless you want the other side to win....because our
candidate, whom ever it is should at least be better than the
lefts.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (GVxQo)
yep

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (hX8cq)

227 Also guess what?

Just to stir the shit--

wth--

Ryan probably was not a good pick.

Wisconsin is well--

Wisconsin --home of the first Socialist Presidential ticket.

Ryan never won a statewide election.

Hence the--I've never did a big debate argument.

Plus Ryan telling the truth to seniors probably cost us Florida.

Also picking Ryan kept us from picking a homey from Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

In a business guys do their time and they expect to be rewarded not passed over for the new guy...

That will cost you experience and ground game but Romney did exactly that.

Now _-I admired the hell out of Romney with trying to tell the American people--

The Truth and picking Ryan but--the American people can't handle the truth and it really was naive.

It was always naive to give the Dems and their allies a target--a concrete plan--a budget.

Ryan might well go down in history as--The Last Honest Politician.

It's the awful cynical reality.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (r2PLg)

228 We are told endlessly that we have to nominate a moderate RINO because they can win and a conservative can't. And that besides it was Romney's turn... and McCains turn before that, Dole's, blah.

So lets turn to the tape shall we? Romney, McCain, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, Reagan. Two of those won outright and one got a term on Reagan's coattails and lost on his own. Now rank them from most conservative to least. Need I say more on this topic?

Agree with post #101 above, we got whacked by the Dem media complex in exactly the same way as if we had nominated Santorum or another actual conservative AND got whacked by being the party of plutocrats for nominating Romney AND whacked for nominating an etch-a-sketch.

And notice how the next turn rule only applies to blueblood RINOs. Notice how Palin was not the heir apparent this go and Santorum is not now and will never be considered the 'next in line.' in the current campaign cycle.

I'm going to stay on the reservation until the last conservative gets eliminated in the primary process (even if it isn't the one I end up supporting) and then I'm for bailing and nuking the festering sore of a Republican Party from orbit.... it's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: John Morris at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (sCRhB)

229
We'll repeat all this again in 2014 and then again in 2016.

All the concern troll hunters will back out on the prowl. And "eyeore" will once again be the Word.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 28, 2012 05:58 PM (jUytm)

230 question, What is the reasoning for Open Primaries?

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (hX8cq)

231 :::As a [whatever the highest D&D "+{number}" thingy is]-level misogynist, I can assure you that Ace isn't one of us. :::

My pimp hand causes +5 damage against a bitch runnin her mouth.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (u6Ixe)

232 I thought that his "moderate New England tone" on social issues would make him more appealing to swing voters, particularly women.

Part of the problem is that we here have some knowledge of politics and politicians. It continually flabbergasted me during this campaign hearing people (in California) telling me that if the Republicans would just nominate someone who wouldn’t push the hard-right line on abortion, they’d vote for him. As far as I know, none of them did, and I tried as nicely as possible to point out that they couldn’t get a better Republican candidate than Romney on that axis.

I would have loved to have nominated someone better.

But who?


Clinton, Bush II, Obama: all had a great ground game. We thought we were getting a great ground game in Romney; how can we look at a candidate and say, yes, this person is going to implement a serious GOTV effort? (I think I’ve said this before here, but when Priebus was tapped for the RNC, I thought that would be his baby. Doesn’t appear that it was.)

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (QF8uk)

233 It's not culture.

GOD!

It's not welfare goodies.

It's the debt load. People aren't getting the whole fedgov debt thing as a negative b/c they LIVE THEIR LIVES THAT WAY

everyone in the middle class is way too leveraged, everyone is now enslaved by their debt and lifestyle.

so they are acting as what they are, slaves. they are fearful. maybe they hoped for more HAMP, more debt forgiveness, continuous zero rates, whatever. they can't get out from under their own debt, it's not real to them, and SANDY really hammered that home for a lot of people.

they AREN'T capable of taking care of themselves and their families and they're giving up.

that's where we are. what happens next? should be interesting. eventually they will have to face reality.

ugly is what it's going to be.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (J6kXj)

234 I don't know how anyone can blame Romney for losing Senate races in states that Romney won handily. I still haven't seen a good explanation for North Dakota or Montana.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (YmPwQ)

235 I hate to keep repeating myself but Now Is The Time to start dirting up the Democrats with paid TV showing all the things that the MFM will not show the electorate during the election cycle.

Effin charts of the debt with Ben Stein voiceover, simple black screens with white letters and no voice listing the lay-offs that occurred that day or week. Stuff like that.

Repetition is key.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (evdj2)

236 so I wound up convincing myself that the public could embrace an aspirational, success-story figure // I thought his prior ability to organize large sprawling concerns

count me as one of those that had, early on, supported him for those reasons. And by early on, I mean since the 2007-08 primaries, since I had, what turned out to be accurate, an educated guess where economic headwinds were taking us. Though there were some problems with gotv etc, I tend to think that my worry this election came true. Namely, fear is a powerful motivator. And in a week economy with high uncertainty, many people just said 'well, Obama is gonna give me stuff to ease my concerns', and that is what tipped the scales. I think this is directly correlated to the "he understands people like me" pablum, as its a cover for people wanting short term concerns allayed. By getting "free" shit.

Posted by: A.G. at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (+ahpo)

237 we should all be raising hell NOW to make sure OUR MILITARY GETS TO VOTE in the next election....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (GVxQo)

238 It was always naive to give the Dems and their allies--*The Media* -a target.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (r2PLg)

239 I keep hearing how Romney couldn't use his money until after the RNC. OK fine. But why could Obama use his money to run non stop ads demonizing Mitt during the summer?

As usual, the Democrats find a way around the rules. The Republicans play by the rules.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (HDgX3)

240 So now we're all voting Libertarian next time, right? Show of hands?

Posted by: ErikW on the damned phone at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (4nRze)

241 @177

You answer a question like that thusly

"Listen I understand that you as an atheist does not suffer the same cognitive tension as someone like myself who believes in a loving and compassionate god.

There is science and there is belief.

There are questions that science has answered and can answer like the age of the earth, there are questions of belief and faith which are informed by religion such as the biblical age of the earth which have nothing to do with policy that I will offer or support.

The earth is as old as science has determined.

FYNQ"

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (RrD4h)

242 Someone on the radio played a clip before the election of college students (Ohio??) being asked about Benghazi. Not one of the stupid fucks knew anything about it.

One giggling airhead actually said, "I don't know about Benghazi, but I can tell you about women's rights to control their bodies."

I wanted to kill myself.

That, in a nutshell, is one of the reasons we lost.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (UOM48)

243 We didn't lose because Romney "wasn't Conservative enough", we lost because the country isn't Conservative enough. Mitt staked out Conservative positions on most issues, he presented a clear alternative to the government centered Obama point of view. People decided they would rather have the guy who is more likely to let them keep their benefits, or so they think.

People are turning against Capitalism in this country, Liberals have sold them on the idea the economic collapse was a failure of Capitalism. NONE of our candidates, nor the guy who took the brunt of the blame, George Bush, convincingly argued otherwise. Mitt could have tried to re-litigate that but it would have come off as a defense of Bush Republicanism.

The culture, the culture, the culture. We lost it. You can go back to the 1960's counterculture movement, giving women the franchise, giving non-property owners the franchise, the tremendous influx of minorities due to legal and illegal immigration, the explosion in the number of single mothers, whatever you want. The is the predictable path Democracies take, we ceased being a Constitutional Republic long ago. We are on the downward slide of the end, the very thing the framers feared. It isn't Romney's fault, or even the Republican Party really.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (x0g8a)

244 the sad thing about election 2012 is that we have no idea "what the election was about"

was it a stunning drop by obama of about 5 million votes by disgusted voters?

rapebortion with binders of bayonettes and abortions on demand?

was it Obamacare vs Romneycare?

Are we all gay now?

Have we become United States of Mexico?

Like 9-11, you'll see the left uses events viewed through their own insane prisms, so don't take their word for it.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (QxSug)

245 I think Romney was winnable, He did not push through on Benghazi or F and F,
I
believe if the population (not the true lefties) but the regular
population knew what was actually being done in their name, they would
be sickened.


Benghazi or Fast and Furious would've have won it for him. The public just wasn't interested, and Romney harping on it wouldn't likely have changed that.

The bottom line is that Romney never managed to shake the Cold Hearted Ultra Rich Manager Who Only Cares About Other Rich People impression.

Voters were convinced he was sufficiently presidential, qualified, and able to deal with the economy. They simply didn't like him, and the more likeable candidate always wins.

Not to say no mistakes were made, but the biggest was his inability to fake being "one of us".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (SY2Kh)

246 You know, my blood pressure settles down nicely when I stay away from the comments sections of this and other websites. But then, just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN. I need a vacation.

Posted by: Sphynx at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (j2McS)

247 Yep.

The argument doesn't work unless and until you can show the guy who would have won. Otherwise, it's nonsense.

And I'm getting to the point where, given reality (the 51% wanted Santa Claus reality), we had the best outcome possible. We almost won, but instead of winning, Obama and his team are going to have to try to manage this mess, and they won't.

The mess is going to be a mess, and they will own it. We'll see what reality people will embrace afterwards, but for now, I'm content to just sit back and watch the show.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (BeSEI)

248 When has running a NorthEast Moderate, worked in recent history, George HW, had spent twenty years in Texas, W had done much of the same, Nixon
had spent some time in New York, but was mostly associated with the SouthWest, give me an example,

Posted by: archie goodwin at November 28, 2012 06:01 PM (ctjsq)

249 Had Gingrich or Santorum been nominated, I believe the GOP congressional losses would have been much greater.

Maybe. Some of us are to the point of "would it matter". Watch the current outcome of the fiscal cliff mirage and we'll see.

The reason I liked Newt was because he could at least explain conservatism in a reasonable way.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 28, 2012 06:01 PM (n/ubI)

250 Obama/OFA/DNC started preparing for 2012 on 11/5/08. Why the hell didn't the RNC do the same? It's as if sometime in August 2012, the Republican "leadership" had a breakfast meeting and said OK guys, how do we go about beating Obama?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:01 PM (HDgX3)

251 Posted by: NCKate at November 28, 2012 05:56 PM (V1oS
___
THIS

the donks join as one, they are singular in purpose. After all the dirty tricks and illegal maneuverings played on HRC in the 2008 donk primaries, a relatively small group splintered off to vote for McCain. The rest fell into line without a lot of grievance-mongering or butthurt.

Posted by: kallisto at November 28, 2012 06:01 PM (jm/9g)

252 willow

to screw up the GOP by having dems able to cross over & vote for weakest rep candidate

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (GVxQo)

253 New party. One day 48 state primary. fuck new hampshire and iowa.

Posted by: ExPat Patriot at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (vVdda)

254
I think they will nominate Michelle Obama for 2016.






Now that will just piss me off. I'm no fan of Hillary but she deserves it way more than the Mooch. In fact, I believe the 08 presidency was stolen from her. I repeat, no fan of Hillary, but she at least used her own abilities to get where she is. Mooch has done nothing on her own. Everything has been handed to her on a silver platter because she is a cultural icon.

Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (DoZD+)

255 There was Ron Paul, of course. The man who actually spent 30 years plus standing on the principles the GOP party platform proclaims to be its own. The man who consistently polled as well or better than Romney against Obama, the one person who could have changed the electoral math that gives the Democrats a huge head start in every Presidential campaign.

We would of course have to write off the war hawks, but people stupid enough to believe our foreign policy is actually in our national interest are fewer and fewer every day. We would have picked up 5 votes for every one of those we lost, and a good riddance to them it would have been!

The GOP of Goldwater and Taft was superior to the GOP of Bush and Rockerfeller in EVERY way.

Posted by: Bob Dobbs at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (fyBJQ)

256 237
we should all be raising hell NOW to make sure OUR MILITARY GETS TO VOTE in the next election....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (GVxQo



I'm still seething with rage that so many (our kid included) didn't get to vote. Yet, stupid hipsters and Obamaphone owners glide into their polling places and vote with ease.


Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (UOM48)

257 Gibbons. Pre-hensile tails, or no?

Tail-less, like all members of super family Hominoidea.

Posted by: fluffy at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (4pSIn)

258 >>My pimp hand causes +5 damage against a bitch runnin her mouth.

Take a bar of soap, slip it inside a sock and drop it in your Bag of Holding.
+7 Damage and -3 Bruising.

Posted by: Zombie Paladin Ike Turner at November 28, 2012 06:02 PM (dga6h)

259 Repetition is key.
----
Except that doesn't seem to work. Shutting it down is the key. Chaos is the key. Financial destruction. SSI checks not showing up.

They say a dictator always rises from chaos, and they might 99.9% of the time, but America isn't the 99.9%.

Posted by: Whatev at November 28, 2012 06:03 PM (2t6Gz)

260 Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that he plans to visit Gaza next week, Turkish paper Today’s Zaman reported.

Erdogan said he was invited to join Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal’s visit to Gaza on December 5, Today’s Zaman reported.

The Turkish prime minister has expressed willingness to visit Gaza several times in the past. Earlier this month, Erdogan told reporters he plans to visit Gaza soon, and that Turkish officials are conducting talks with officials in the Strip in order to make the trip happen, according to Today’s Zaman.

Erdogan announced plans to visit Gaza in July and again in September of 2011, both times canceling the trip that would have surely irked the Israeli government. Israel and much of the West designate the ruling Hamas government in Gaza as a terrorist organization.

On Tuesday, Iranian news agency PressTV reported that Egypt has given preliminary approval for Iranian lawmakers to visit Gaza through the Rafah border crossing.

obama's best friend that Turkey guy. Way to go obama. Another foreign policy victory.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 28, 2012 06:03 PM (jE38p)

261 same day voter registration has to be abolished.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (GVxQo)

262 I don't think Romney was a bad candidate. I think free stuff won the election for Obama and there was little we could have done about it. I suspect some of the anti- Romney feeling on the right was because of his religion. (My mother was very relieved that he lost so now he can't shove his cult down our throat. I tried to tell that not only wouldn't he pass a mandatory magic underwear law but he couldn't. It made no difference. Obama was preferable to a pagan.). I do think, however, I would prefer to lose running with a candidate that I basically agree with than to lose with a Donk-lite candidate. And therein lies the rub. The pragmatic approach of running a moderate is not pragmatic in that we lose .

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (S42w4)

263 There was Ron Paul, of course. The man who actually spent 30 years plus
standing on the principles the GOP party platform proclaims to be its
own.


Hating Israel and not wanting to kill Bin Laden are principles of the GOP?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (uhAkr)

264
Something that a few others have noticed and mentioned on other threads.

I actually see more Obama bumper stickers now AFTER the election than I did before. And I was looking for them. There were a lot of people that apparently voted for the SOB but were concealing it prior to winning.

Now they want to have their Snoopy victory dance, by putting on the bumper sticker.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (RFeQD)

265 And don't forget - Biz Markie 2016!

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (/1U3u)

266 Newt was and is a loose cannon. He's also described himself as "Wilsonian"....and that should scare the shit out of all of us.

Husband and I know the guy and he's likeable, but just no.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (UOM48)

267
We are economicly fuct and the country voted for a moron who never had a job *over* a man who made hundreds of millions of dollars turning around failing companies. You cannot make this stuff up.

Posted by: Goodness at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (m8jxa)

268 One day 48 state primary

Good god, no. I think the primary system needs serious reform, but I also think it’s a very good idea to force candidates to show their ability to win over a long campaign.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (QF8uk)

269 Ace:

For the love of Christ, this is not that hard and I have no idea why it escapes us all.

Your post about GHWB calling Reagan an "extreme conservative" to Gorby says it all.

This country is made up of "extreme conservatives" or at least "conservatives" by and large. We do not like big government and do not trust politicians.

NO SHIT!!!! Not trusting politicians should be the first fucking leg of our platform, everyone can agree on that shit!!! how difficult is this. Even Eastwood said the same shit in a passing reference in his awesome empty chair speech. You want to find a popular position, attack Congress and politicians with a vengeance. America doesn't have the same hatred for Presidents because they're only in 8 years!

The problem with the fucking RINOs is that they pick shitty candidates. Reagan fought the conservative fight for DECADES. He was there for the wins and the LOSSES.

He was tried and true. He was middle class. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED. We cannot have people whose daddy or granddaddy or whatever the fuck were Richie Rich. And we cannot have candidates who are MAVERICKS or whatever the fuck that means (see sellout conservative positions).

We need uncompromised conservatives whose background and bio completely DESTROY the bullshit stereotypes the MFM has successfully painted us with. Pick those types of leaders and WE WILL WIN.....

And run a smarter campaign/GOTV and reach rank and file union members and minorities. And that's why I always say:

Marco Rubio-Tom Cotton 2016!!!!!

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (tVTLU)

270 >>I still haven't seen a good explanation for North Dakota or Montana.

Ag Subsidies, Indian Reservations, Universities and Unions.

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (dga6h)

271 We lost because while we conservatives tend to think of things in advance (ex: how to pay for them), I don't think a majority of people, especially the youth vote, have any concept of what 16 trillion dollars in debt means in real terms. The pain isn't real yet.

SOOOOON.

I also tend to think that politics is generally reactive, as in we tend to only want to talk about crisises when they are thrust upon us, even when we can see it coming a mile away. That Hitler guy, no worries it'll be cool. Housing bubble? What bubble? Wanna mortgage? Education bubble? What are you talking about?

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (t06LC)

272 "Imagine if he had been black, transgender, gay, or hispanic. Better yet, from the muzzie brohood. Shoe in."

No.

Look, the reason Democrats went with the incompetent, no-experienced Obama in 2008 over Clinton is because he was so unique. He was a young, articulate, African American politician from a larger urban area.

A large number of African American democratic politicians represent only African Americans. They have little appeal outside of their racial demographic.

Obama was an African American who had won statewide office from a one of the larger states (thanks again 7 of 9). How many other Af.Ams have done that? Deval Patrick? Doug Wilder? Dinkins? A black republican Senator from Mass. back in the 70s whose name I forget. I am blanking on others (I am sure there are some, but I can't think of any).

Obama was the dream candidate. He had no record. He was articulate. He would ensure a religious like turn out from AfAms. The young bought into him as their 2008 version of Eugene McCarthy. Liberals would see him as the incarnation of all their dreams for what they thought their social engineering policies could achieve. He had cross-over appeal to the guilty White, Bobo pseudo Republicans (Althouse, Chris Buckley, David Brooks). He had no record that could be attacked. He was one of a kind.

Some of the shine came off him in this election, but he was able to hold on to enough of his voters to pull it out, and depress enough other voters from showing up.

The Democrats are going to be hard pressed to find another Obama in 2016.

The more I reflect on this election the more I think Obama was the main factor that explained why we lost. Of course, I am probably telling myself this to make myself fell better.

Posted by: nc at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (Cxl7g)

273 230question, What is the reasoning for Open Primaries?
Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (hX8cq)
Democratic judges say we have to have them.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (is6yP)

274 We really need to change our primary process. Fuck this 6 month dog and pony show with fuck all states going first. Give them three months from debate 1 till the primary, then primary all states on the same night. Any state not complying loses half their votes for each day from the appointed day in either direction.

Get it done by the end of February and give our guy a chance to defend himself. (herself) build a warchest, and get a game together.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (TRNea)

275 Benghazi or Fast and Furious would've have won it for him.

Dammit. Fast and Furious wouldn't have won it for him.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:05 PM (SY2Kh)

276 Gotta go. Those pork chops in mushroom sauce aren't going to cook themselves.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (UOM48)

277 I actually see more Obama bumper stickers now AFTER the election than I did before. And I was looking for them. There were a lot of people that apparently voted for the SOB but were concealing it prior to winning.

YES. they are EVERYWHERE now. they were hiding them. who DOES that?!?!

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (J6kXj)

278 anyone see the david horowitz article at breitbart? his brother in law is special needs...has care takers who registered him to vote, taught him how great the scoamf is....including chants...and filled out his ballot for him....disgusting......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (GVxQo)

279 Obama already appointed three new hard-left federal judges in Pennsylvania, by the by

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (J6kXj)

280 All I needed to know as a republican on Election Day was that I was not voting for TFG. Could've been whomever. They could've stood for whatever. But they weren't Obama.

Posted by: NCKate at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (V1oS8)

281
Darn you, RINOs! Darn you to heck!

Posted by: RINO Inconveniencer at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (ggRof)

282 175 Talk about bush Bushleague...

-------

FIFY

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (NmR1a)

283 Push for voter ID laws in every damn state possible and fight to enforce the letter of the law. I know the law is something the Dems scoff at and trample on but we have to start somewhere.

Start running the ads on the "dumb" networks now. TV Land, E Entertainment etc. It's what the unwashed masses watch. It goes against everything I believed would work but I was proved wrong.

Posted by: mpfs at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (iYbLN)

284 Another comment:

We need to harness Ron Paul and Rand Paul, they have very good points on a lot of subjects. We need their support, and their supporters support.
PERIOD.

And another point phoenixgirl brought up, why oh fucking why, are we not making damn sure that our military votes are coming in. Isn't that the least we can do??

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (tVTLU)

285 we should all be raising hell NOW to make sure OUR MILITARY GETS TO VOTE in the next election....

You rang?

Posted by: Robert Heinlein at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (QTHTd)

286 Except that doesn't seem to work.

I didn't see us try. Seriously. Just a 15 second add in every alphabet network news broadcast showing what companies had layoffs and how many. Make it consistent. Maybe the second ad in every news cycle. Use it as the anti-dote to the Prosperity Montage the networks are going to run. Save money by not running them on FNC, those viewers we will have anyway.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (evdj2)

287 Phoenixgirl, Sure seems a stupid idea. although i do remember Rush saying to cross over to get Obama, which i think was also crappy, we could have actually ripped Hillary's head off the last four years instead of every argument being racist...
hmm maybe not, misogyny! might have been the new deal, sigh.



-------------
Voters were convinced he was sufficiently
presidential, qualified, and able to deal with the economy. They simply
didn't like him, and the more likeable candidate always wins.

Not to say no mistakes were made, but the biggest was his inability to fake being "one of us".


Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:00 PM (SY2Kh)
yes, hence obama cares about people like me.

yuck, .... damn'd people

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (hX8cq)

288 Its way past the point of hoping to convince just enough to win. Pain and misery was the choice, and pain and misery should be the result of this latest presidential vote. Starvation has a good way of causing people not to give a shit about free checkups and contraceptives.

Posted by: Whatev at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (2t6Gz)

289 http://tinyurl.com/ae3optk

article on mentally disabled voting......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (GVxQo)

290 One more thing:

NO JEB BUSH!

Posted by: mpfs at November 28, 2012 06:07 PM (iYbLN)

291 237 we should all be raising hell NOW to make sure OUR MILITARY GETS TO VOTE in the next election....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 05:59 PM (GVxQo)


WTF is the chance of that? The GOP won't even go after obvious open vote fraud, because it's not worth it or it's too hard or whatever the excuse of the day is.

Hundreds or thousands of felonies, corruption of the representative system, "meh."

We knew about military disenfranchisement in 2010 and 2008 - it's been freaking Dem *policy* to do that since at least 2000.

*crickets*

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (bxiXv)

292 The GOP of Goldwater and Taft was superior to the GOP of Bush and Rockerfeller in EVERY way.

Agreed.

Posted by: President Goldwater at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (4pSIn)

293 Before I hit the kitchen,

Let.It.Burn.

The stupid need to suffer.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (UOM48)

294 The other thing everyone forgets is--

Presidential, general elections are very, very different from off-year elections.


Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (r2PLg)

295 >>>Tail-less, like all members of super family Hominoidea.

That won't do. What good is a monkey without a tail, anyway?

Posted by: garrett at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (dga6h)

296 Hollow, the correction wsn't needed the rest of the comment cleared it up.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (hX8cq)

297 277:

Yes, I notice the same thing. More O bumper stickers after the election. That's pretty damn strange.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (tVTLU)

298 261 same day voter registration has to be abolished.......


Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 28, 2012 06:04 PM (GVxQo)

I'm a Constitutional Conservative... but we NEED a National ID Card, tied to Voter Registration, Immigration/ Citizenship Status, and Passport.

No card? No Vote... and voting MUST be done in person, at the Polls, for everyone EXCEPT Military or those Working for the Fed Gov Overseas.

Living outside the Country? Why should you GET to decide who our leaders are....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (lZBBB)

299 I had hoped Fred Thompson would run again, but sadly, no. Or even his trophy wife, Geri, who is just awesome.
It would be nice if we had someone who both believed in conservative values and could then represent them to the public in a positive way. This combination is what set Reagan apart.
Since Reagan, though, we've had candidates who either didn't actually believe in the conservative message and/or who couldn't find a way to represent them positively to the public.
It would be nice if we could find someone who, like Reagan, could do both AND had minimal personal baggage. Allen West mayhaps?

Posted by: OCBill at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (rFipM)

300 All this talk is bullshit. We lost because 51% of the people want their free shit. End of story. Doesn't matter if it was Romney or anyone else.


Look, it likely doesn't matter because both parties are broken and the government and the public writ large are indeed a decade (or 6) past the realistic point of no return.


And Free Shit Army is our major problem, but not every single obama voter voted for free shit. Some of them voted for obama for other reasons.


And good news - or bad news - not every Free Shit voter voted for Obama either.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (YUttk)

301 I'm sort of glad nothing we say matters, 2014 and 2016 will come on down the pike the same way and we'll just have to see how the stupid shakes out.

The thing about the left is that they have certain...disadvantages.

disadvantages?

yes, they're insane.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (QxSug)

302 :::255 There was Ron Paul, of course. The man who actually spent 30 years plus standing on the principles the GOP party platform proclaims to be its own. The man who consistently polled as well or better than Romney against Obama, the one person who could have changed the electoral math that gives the Democrats a huge head start in every Presidential campaign.:::

Aaaaand the circle is now complete.

This is another data point that supports my theory that all Paultards have a searchbot looking for pages with the phrase "True Conservative."

It's like shining the fucking Batshit Signal off the cloud deck when you need some crazy right away.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (u6Ixe)

303 YES. they are EVERYWHERE now. they were hiding them. who DOES that?!?!
Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:06 PM (J6kXj)

Sick liberal bastards

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (jE38p)

304 >>>Good god, no. I think the primary system needs serious reform, but I also think it’s a very good idea to force candidates to show their ability to win over a long campaign.

No it shows they can not F* up over a long campaign. The multistate extravaganza is a moneypit where we put our ad dollars to work against each other for 9 months, then have 4 months to put together a national campaign against the real enemy. That seems ass backwards to me.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 06:09 PM (TRNea)

305 Whatevah. I'm tired of this "what if/blame" stuff. So tired.

Posted by: eureka! LIFBer at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (UL+ny)

306 Let it burn.

The Cajun cooking ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (r2PLg)

307 291 Merovign,

there are so many things i cannot understand about the GOP.
stupid doesn't really explain it all.
but it's inexplicable.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (hX8cq)

308 Personally, the only blood I'm spilling is a bloody Mary, although I did draw my knife to cut a pert little lemon slice.

Posted by: Cricket at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (2ArJQ)

309 Now they want to have their Snoopy victory dance, by putting on the bumper sticker.

I like it. I am noting who is on my shit list.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (evdj2)

310 I specifically blame whoever is 23 comments below this post. Just sayin'...

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (X/+QT)

311 Silver Dimes!

Posted by: luaP noR at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (dga6h)

312 **294 The other thing everyone forgets is--

Presidential, general elections are very, very different from off-year elections. **

yup, my own little research project, michigan showed that of 5million voters, 1.9 voted for GOP (we won) in 2010 and...what? 1.91 voted for GOP in 2012 vs Obama getting every legal and illegal remaining vote in that state.

directed voter fraud.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (QxSug)

313 No card? No Vote... and voting MUST be done in person, at the Polls, for everyone EXCEPT Military or those Working for the Fed Gov Overseas.

---
ID AND purple thumb. Preferably made out of the stuff that is in spray foam. The stuff that *wears* off in a week.

Posted by: Whatev at November 28, 2012 06:11 PM (2t6Gz)

314 No card? No Vote... and voting MUST be done in person, at the Polls, for everyone EXCEPT Military or those Working for the Fed Gov Overseas.

In addition to this, I’ve been thinking photo signatures along with the written signature is a good idea. Votes are secret, but the fact that someone voted isn’t secret. Press a button when you sign in, a photo gets attached to your signature, and it will be a lot easier to prove vote fraud. It could even be crowd-sourced.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 28, 2012 06:12 PM (QF8uk)

315 This is why I am imploring us to do something about the candidates. If we start organizing in each one of our respective states and start our own exploratory committee for candidates we like: Mine are Rubio and 2) Scott Walker,

WE CAN DIRECT THE PROCESS. I mean imagine coming into a primary where you already have a machine in place and people committed to voting for you. Years in advance working to make sure we have the right representation.

That is what I want to organize. First and foremost.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:12 PM (tVTLU)

316 no other 2012 GOP contender was viable, but we still lost big.

Bigger than you think.

At least if Perry or Tpaw had run, we'd not have lost those senate seats.

Somehow, the left won every election they had their eyes on this cycle.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:12 PM (QxSug)

317 @266

He's a loose canon when the topics veer from conservatism but when the topic is on conservative issues and frame their is none better at articulating conservative principles lucidly.

You set up a primary and debate system that is meant to produce the most conservative candidate and Newt will probably win out.

But we have a system that turns out weak shit and the donks mow it down.

Posted by: General Woundwort at November 28, 2012 06:12 PM (RrD4h)

318 The problem with centrist/Centrist (and technocratic) candidates is this:

If you don't really stand for something, if you don't define yourself and your ideology, your opponents will do it for you. And since they are malicious, obsessed with winning, and possess Media superiority, they will win.



The past is there to learn lessons from. Nothing more. But also, nothing less.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:12 PM (vIRPd)

319 what i think lefties do right is the overt and subversive 'everything is political'
although having the means , unions, tv programming, media, carneywood , 'right thoughts approved at work' etc


Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (hX8cq)

320 Oh, if Rubio or Bush wins the nomination, that's another election I'm sitting out.

Posted by: boulder hobo at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (QTHTd)

321 Presidential, general elections are very, very different from off-year elections. **

yup, my own little research project, michigan showed that of 5million voters, 1.9 voted for GOP (we won) in 2010 and...what? 1.91 voted for GOP in 2012 vs Obama getting every legal and illegal remaining vote in that state.

directed voter fraud.
Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now at November 28, 2012 06:10 PM (QxSug)

________________________

Well thee's that but minority and youth vote turn out is different.

Hell I kept forgetting that.

Maybe our only hope is the Democrats have created one hell of a problem for themselves...

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (r2PLg)

322 >>>There was Ron Paul, of course.

Ah yes, I remember him, the only man with a foreign policy more dangerous than Obamas.

The only candidate whom has made openly anti-jew comments.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (TRNea)

323 Eric Hold3r and TFG are thugs. They will not do anything to "fix" the vote, or to "fix" illegal immigration.

Our only hope as a society is that they're just dishonest crooks, not Cloward Piven disciples.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (QxSug)

324 "319 what i think lefties do right is the overt and subversive 'everything is political'
although having the means , unions, tv programming, media, carneywood , 'right thoughts approved at work' etc


Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (hX8cq) "

This.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:14 PM (vIRPd)

325
Agreed.
Posted by: President Goldwater at November 28, 2012 06:08 PM (4pSIn)


Preach it, brother!

Posted by: Presidents Romney, Dole, and McCain at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (IS2o0)

326 317 @266

He's a loose canon when the topics veer from conservatism but when the topic is on conservative issues and frame their is none better at articulating conservative principles lucidly.

You set up a primary and debate system that is meant to produce the most conservative candidate and Newt will probably win out.

________________________

Newt has a weird habit of laughing when the topic is very serious--it isn't as bad as Biden during the debate--but it's there.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (r2PLg)

327 "323 Eric Hold3r and TFG are thugs. They will not do anything to "fix" the vote, or to "fix" illegal immigration.

Our only hope as a society is that they're just dishonest crooks, not Cloward Piven disciples.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (QxSug) "

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (vIRPd)

328 Let's see how tough we all are when each one of us gets individual SWAT team visits by federal agents confiscating guns, canned soup, water, gold...whatever else you think will help you make it through the LiB scenario.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (QxSug)

329 Boulder hobo:

No Jeb Bush whatsoever. I agree with that.

rubio however, I am organizing for him in several states and so are my friends and our close families.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (tVTLU)

330 Look guys, the Republican brand itself still hasn't recovered from the ass-f@cking it gave itself when it controlled Congress from 2000-2006. Until that happens, fuhgeddaboudit. And you're going to have to do a better job of explaining why taxes on the rich shouldn't be increased -- that it'll cause job layoffs, guys, look around, no one's buying that one even though there are myriad factors at play here. Tone deaf is an apt description.

Also, the voters who matter don't give a squat about abortion, prayer, or gay marriage when they're losing their homes and spending their vay-cay $ just to fill the gas tank to get to work if they have a job.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (dZ756)

331 The way I see it RINOs are about as legitimate as some jezebel who wants to pay for her own abortion and who lives 1000 miles out of my state. What we should do is burn the entire RINO establishment to the ground, as God has whispered in my ear, that way we're pure and true. Besides, we're better off not having any political power. Having political power gives us less time to pray.

Posted by: Todd Akin at November 28, 2012 06:16 PM (pmsMR)

332 The Montana seat was an easy lay up for the GOP. Yet there was a Libertarian running who got 6.5% of the vote. Take that 6.5% give it to the Republican and it's an easy win. But instead the Democrat wins with 47%.

This type of shit drives me crazy. You almost never see it on the left. They coalesce around teh Democrat. He/she may not be a perfect communist but nonetheless they fall into line. What do conservatives do? They vote for a guy who has 0% chance of winning and elect the Democrat. Nice work Montana libertarians.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:16 PM (HDgX3)

333 Hey is this a 2016 thread?

Rand Paul 2016!

Posted by: Guy who doesn't read the post at November 28, 2012 06:17 PM (fCMdQ)

334 "330 Look guys, the Republican brand itself still hasn't recovered from the ass-f@cking it gave itself when it controlled Congress from 2000-2006. Until that happens, fuhgeddaboudit. And you're going to have to do a better job of explaining why taxes on the rich shouldn't be increased -- that it'll cause job layoffs, guys, look around, no one's buying that one even though there are myriad factors at play here. Tone deaf is an apt description.

Also, the voters who matter don't give a squat about abortion, prayer, or gay marriage when they're losing their homes and spending their vay-cay $ just to fill the gas tank to get to work if they have a job.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (dZ756) "

2000-2006? Might want to recheck that. And rethink some other things as well.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:17 PM (vIRPd)

335 **Maybe our only hope is the Democrats have created one hell of a problem for themselves...**

Nope. Won't matter have to wait dormant until Obama retires in about 16 years. Then hope that a congenial general in WWIII survives and is able to run as our next IKE.

So, with luck, we'll be back in Mad Men times in about um....20 years...definatly not more than 36 tops.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:17 PM (QxSug)

336 332 Amen.

Posted by: nc at November 28, 2012 06:17 PM (Cxl7g)

337 Also, the voters who matter don't give a squat about abortion, prayer, or gay marriage when they're losing their homes and spending their vay-cay $ just to fill the gas tank to get to work if they have a job.

Self evidently not.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 06:17 PM (evdj2)

338 We are told endlessly that we have to nominate a moderate RINO because
they can win and a conservative can't. And that besides it was Romney's
turn... and McCains turn before that, Dole's, blah.


Who told us that? Give me a name and a cite.

Then explain how their Magical Establishment Mindpowers brainwashed people into voting exactly how they wanted them to.

Newsflash: The reason that the political class opposed the likes of Bachmann, Santorum, Cain and Palin isn't because they were too conservative. The deep flaws that would've made them horrible general election candidates were individual shortcomings each had.

Every simpleton who whines about how The Establishment is (somehow, they never specify) forcing candidates on us and/or picking our candidates for us should be permanently shunned from political discussion. Because they're stupid.

Primary / caucus voter picked the candidate from those who chose to run. It's really that fucking simple. If "The Establishment" could pick and choose who ran and won, the likes of Michele Bachmann wouldn't have gotten within 100 yards of a debate stage.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:18 PM (SY2Kh)

339 Repubs, if they still have the conservative base by 2016 need to remember over and over two things about campaigning against dems: Down and dirty. Down and dirty. We've seen it with Clinton and, now, Dear Leader. Down and dirty works.

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 06:18 PM (gZe+5)

340 "331 The way I see it RINOs are about as legitimate as some jezebel who wants to pay for her own abortion and who lives 1000 miles out of my state. What we should do is burn the entire RINO establishment to the ground, as God has whispered in my ear, that way we're pure and true. Besides, we're better off not having any political power. Having political power gives us less time to pray.

Posted by: Todd Akin at November 28, 2012 06:16 PM (pmsMR) "

Better to purge all the "trucons," right, comrade? Centrist purity! Centrist pride! Centrist power! (And then what?)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:19 PM (vIRPd)

341 Repubs, if they still have the conservative base by
2016 need to remember over and over two things about campaigning against
dems: Down and dirty. Down and dirty. We've seen it with Clinton and,
now, Dear Leader. Down and dirty works.

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 06:18 PM (gZe+5)

i hate this, but i think it is true.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:19 PM (hX8cq)

342 Nope. Won't matter have to wait dormant until Obama retires in about 16 years. Then hope that a congenial general in WWIII survives and is able to run as our next IKE.


________________

Crap.

Well I think the media is there for the block on that.

It's like they've taken a vow not to create a new military star like they supposedly did during the Gulf War--
Swarzkopf and.......


(Powell).

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:20 PM (r2PLg)

343 >>>If "The Establishment" could pick and choose who ran and won, the likes of Michele Bachmann wouldn't have gotten within 100 yards of a debate stage.

To be fair, we did send that lady to Iowa to tell her the Tardisil story.

Posted by: Republican Establishment at November 28, 2012 06:20 PM (dga6h)

344 Screw the next President, how do we get rid of boner.

Posted by: Jean at November 28, 2012 06:20 PM (BNuW6)

345 **Look guys, the Republican brand itself still hasn't recovered from the ass-f@cking it gave itself when it controlled Congress from 2000-2006. **

Ginch controlled it since 1994. Gave Clinton his glory years, yo.

we lost in 2006 because we were the party of gay man boy love.

The left has no problem going neanderthal on us.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:20 PM (QxSug)

346 There has to be some kind of system, like a computer chip or tattoo (bar code) that can be a new form of id. Get ready for it. It's coming. We will all need this "mark" to buy or sell. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 28, 2012 06:20 PM (jucos)

347 320 Oh, if Rubio or Bush wins the nomination, that's another election I'm sitting out.
Posted by: boulder hobo at November 28, 2012 06:13 PM (QTHTd)

Why don't you like Rubio?

Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (A98Xu)

348
Perry only got into the race because the field was so weak. And he went from dealing with the Bastrop fire directly to the debate.

He'll do better next time.

Posted by: Invictus at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (OQpzc)

349 The Stupid Party's problems go deeper than Romney.

The Evil Party has a Value Proposition that's very appealing to a lot of voters: "We'll take money from the greedy rich and use it to buy you stuff."

Easy to understanding and viscerally appealing.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (azHfB)

350 #254 Michelle will be nominated precisely BECAUSE she is a cultural icon.

The only thing that might stop it is Andrew Cuomo getting pissed off.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (GoIUi)

351 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:18 PM (SY2Kh)

You think ostracism is a bright idea? ...


Ostracism! For Democracy! For Freedom! For Progress!

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (vIRPd)

352 we lost in 2006 because we were the party of gay man boy love.


Ah, the salad days.

Posted by: Jerry Sandusky at November 28, 2012 06:22 PM (dga6h)

353 Re 310, 333. See what I mean?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 28, 2012 06:22 PM (X/+QT)

354 There is something worse than losing, and it's losing without winning converts and making a clear case with rational and gut appeal for the American Experiment.

See, I liked Romney a lot better there at the end. Not because he changed but because I understood him better, and he proved to really possess less of the smarm I have always attributed to him, and more of the calm temper and high intellect and practical outlook that could have saved this country.

And I always knew Gingrich was likely to lose. With eyes open, however, to all of his faults, I thought he'd make a stickier case for ideas great and small that make the backbone of our liberty.

Posted by: sarahw at November 28, 2012 06:22 PM (LYwCh)

355 Romney wasn't my guy. But he was the candidate and I believe he did an acceptable job of representing the various republican factions. Whatever his sins of omission or commission in the campaign would have been second guessed. If he punched too hard on an issue he should have held back, and vice versa. My thought is that aside from all of this is that the American mob has lost a minimal level of any ability to reason and need to learn from the consequences of being a collective group of stupid shits. Let it burn. There is a valuable lesson, for the stupid shits, in the ashes.

Posted by: Minuteman at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (qs9G3)

356 And Mitt lost without making that case. That's worse than just losing.

Posted by: sarahw at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (LYwCh)

357 Yep, Miss Marple is correct.

At this point I am pinning all hope on Mario's boy.

And honestly if he's the Dem nom I will be ok. He's at least not insane.

we r at the point where we have to hope for decent Dem national candidates. sad but true.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (J6kXj)

358 "Anyway, it's unavoidable that we have just this 'My Segment of the Party
Is Quite Clearly the Most Popular and Victory-Producing Part of It So
Let's All Gather Under My Flag' argument at some point."

It's more about nominee choice than about party segments. And about nominees failing to identify where they are weak, and address that weakness.

If you had asked me this time last year where the GOP was going to have problems with swing voters this cycle, I would have listed five areas.

-- Racism claims
-- Class warfare claims
-- More-foreign-wars claims
-- Intellectual vacuity claims
-- "War on women" claims

Romney ended up ceding four of the five.

Racism: the Democrats cried "racist!" a bunch against Romney, but it never really stuck. To my amazement. One thing I expected to hear more of via dogwhistle were references to the Mormon history w.r.t. blacks in the church. That never really happened, not that I picked up on. This was the only bullet Romney managed to dodge. And I think just by being a decent bloke. I never got the sense he saw the risk.

Class warfare: the GOP stuck their chin way out there by nominating Romney, and the Democrats delivered a haymaker on that chin. Average Americans have become very, very suspicious of high finance. The chasm between Main Street and Wall Street is wider than it's ever been. And especially in the Rust Belt, that stuff has traction. The Axelrod brain trust started hammering the upper Midwest with ads about Romney's offshore bank accounts the instant it was clear Romney would win the primaries. The polls show that worked like a charm.

Foreign wars: not only are a lot of swing voters pissed with Wall Street, they're war weary. Romney did himself no favors by selecting a bunch of growling pit bull neocon foreign policy advisers. He should have said, "The biggest single foreign policy issue is our failing economy. The biggest single national security issue is our failing economy. I am not going to be an aggressive President overseas because this country simply can't afford that right now. We have to pull back and rebuild our economic strength first before we re-engage." Not a great message geopolitically, but a great message politically.

Intellectual vacuity claims: the VP pick is a risk here, always. The "too dumb to be President in a crisis" line worked for liberals with Dan Quayle, deservedly. Worked again with Sarah Palin, much less deservedly. Romney took this one off the table by nominating the whip-smart Ryan. But then the whole "Republicans are illiterate cavemen" nonsense got reignited by Todd Akin and his inability to understand grade school biology, and Romney never managed to distance himself or the party from Akin's idiocies.

War on women claims: Akin again. 'Nuff said.

So when there are 5 areas of risk with swing voters and the nominee gets chewed up on 4 of the 5, don't expect a landslide victory. Don't even expect a squeaker victory.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (ymG7s)

359 334
"330 Look guys, the Republican brand itself still hasn't recovered from
the ass-f@cking it gave itself when it controlled Congress from
2000-2006. Until that happens, fuhgeddaboudit. And you're going to have
to do a better job of explaining why taxes on the rich shouldn't be
increased -- that it'll cause job layoffs, guys, look around, no one's
buying that one even though there are myriad factors at play here. Tone
deaf is an apt description.



Also, the voters who matter don't give a squat about abortion,
prayer, or gay marriage when they're losing their homes and spending
their vay-cay $ just to fill the gas tank to get to work if they have a
job.



Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:15 PM (dZ756) "



2000-2006? Might want to recheck that. And rethink some other things as well.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Really? Defend the 2000-2006 (ok, 2001-2007) GOP. This oughta be entertaining. Ok, there was that Congressional investigation into Fannie/Freddie. Oh wait, there wasn't. There was a whole lot of reckless spending and soccons being outed as cheats and liars. All the good Gingrich accomplished during Clinton's 2nd term was pissed away. But go ahead, it's all the fault of everybody but elected soccons.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (dZ756)

360 350 -- No.

While I think Obama is a mediocre politician, Michelle has absolutely no political skills. She also gives off a major angry vibe. Voters don't like angry.

Posted by: nc at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (Cxl7g)

361 Real, burning question:

Was anyone on this blog truly thrilled/excited to have Mitt Romney as our candidate?? Anyone???

and I mean, not because he could potentially beat zero. But just him, alone, on his merits.

I began to get excited the more I learned about the guy. But I am a hyper informed voter. 99.5% of voters didn't even know who the fuck this guy was except for what the DNC (ads/media) told them. And that wasn't good.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (tVTLU)

362 Easy to understanding and viscerally appealing.

Indeed. The Party of the Free Lunch starts with a real advantage. And it has worked for them for years because the republicans keep taking their turds and polishing them enough to almost work. I've asked my reps to quit doing that. Let the Democrats have anything that can be reversed later, if there is a later. Let the repercussions come now.

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (evdj2)

363 Rubio--is about the only guy I can think of that has that it factor--

*charisma* and I only saw it when he campaigns and talks to the crowd--not so much during his speeches.

I think he comes off as too young, however for top of the ticket.

I'm trying to think of a Republican with charisma....and not the baggage that kind of comes with that.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:24 PM (r2PLg)

364 We should have nominated Gary Johnson. We still would have lost, but we would have shaken things up a bit.

Posted by: Pyrrho of Elis II: The Secret of the Ooze at November 28, 2012 06:24 PM (Kd6lF)

365 So how about them Knicks?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 28, 2012 06:24 PM (jE38p)

366 Perry only got into the race because the field was so weak. And he went from dealing with the Bastrop fire directly to the debate.He'll do better next time.
Posted by: Invictus at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (OQpzc)


--------------------------------------------


I think Perry is a learner. I think he'll do better also.

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 06:24 PM (gZe+5)

367 And you know what. You guys who are in the population wants free shit camp?

You may be right.

Add together ObamaPhoneLady and SeparatistMexicanStates* and VariousCaucasianSWPLunionjobs

we got problems.

* it dawned on me that victor d hansens tale about hispanic towns with no english and everything is on federal handout dime...yeah, that's the demographic change the left is bleating about.

Just saying, who is more open minded:

hispanic shanty town living completely on fed handouts?
ObamaphoneLady?
Liberal white pukes in fancy no-show high pay jobs with no performance review?

the answer may surprise you. I think it's obamaphonelady.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:24 PM (QxSug)

368 Avoiding this discussion like I avoid genital herpes.

Posted by: steevy at November 28, 2012 06:24 PM (9XBK2)

369 332
The Montana seat was an easy lay up for the GOP. Yet there was a
Libertarian running who got 6.5% of the vote. Take that 6.5% give it to
the Republican and it's an easy win. But instead the Democrat wins with
47%.

This type of shit drives me crazy. You almost never see it
on the left. They coalesce around teh Democrat. He/she may not be a
perfect communist but nonetheless they fall into line. What do
conservatives do? They vote for a guy who has 0% chance of winning and
elect the Democrat. Nice work Montana libertarians.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo

Hello.

Posted by: Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate 2000 at November 28, 2012 06:25 PM (dZ756)

370 "Also, the voters who matter don't give a squat about abortion, prayer,
or gay marriage when they're losing their homes and spending their
vay-cay $ just to fill the gas tank to get to work if they have a job."

actually Democrats care a lot about these. But they're on the Right Side so it's kewl.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 06:25 PM (60GaT)

371 Let It Burn.

When the free shit runs out, there will be riots, wailing and gnashing of teeth. First the Republicans will be blamed, but then they'll turn on their Chocolate Messiah.

Let It Burn.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:25 PM (UOM48)

372 >>So how about them Knicks?

I think they have a a legitimate chance to get in the playoffs.

Posted by: Todd Akin at November 28, 2012 06:25 PM (dga6h)

373 the answer may surprise you. I think it's obamaphonelady.

well . . . not sure. she might be best of the three but BETTER is O-phone-lady's BROTHER

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:26 PM (J6kXj)

374 sad but true, all things being equal, if we could've controlled voter fraud and got the ballots to the military (and of course, it's insane to think that anyone voted more than once wink wink), then Perry would've smoked Obama because Perry, in my 20/20 hindsight was honeybadger, too stupid to do anything but devour his opponents.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:26 PM (QxSug)

375 370
"Also, the voters who matter don't give a squat about abortion, prayer,

or gay marriage when they're losing their homes and spending their

vay-cay $ just to fill the gas tank to get to work if they have a job."

actually Democrats care a lot about these. But they're on the Right Side so it's kewl.


Posted by: JDP

Actually, I specifically referred to "the voters who matter" and that's not Dems.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:26 PM (dZ756)

376 All the polls said that the one guy, Gene "Ric" Republican, would easily defeat Obama. Everyone seemed to like him. I wonder why he didn't run?

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (i0App)

377 Torquewrench:

That is a perfect fucking post. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

And we will face those same "attacks" every time around. Our candidate, his very being, needs to repudiate those attacks to their very core.

Once that bullshit is blown to the wayside, we can refocus on the message of limited government and hating politicians.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (tVTLU)

378 You think ostracism is a bright idea? ...



Ostracism! For Democracy! For Freedom! For Progress!


They should be encouraged to comment at sites like Free Republic where the typical IQ of commenters is a nice, comfy room temperature.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (SY2Kh)

379 **she might be best of the three but BETTER is O-phone-lady's BROTHER**

and that may be the donk's undoing if they manage to get felons to vote (not racist, remember, it's the racist system that puts obamaphonelady's brother in jail so he can't vote in the first place).

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (QxSug)

380
Still wasting time and bandwidth. Romney won the primaryvoting and lost the election. It's over.


Move on to preparing for economic Armageddon. Worrying over politicians is a complete waste of time. None of them are going to a damn thing that will save you.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (1Y+hH)

381 The problem is Republicans look at elections as a friendly competition between two parties. Democrats look at it as full out war. Until the mentality of the GOP changes, we will never win another national election again.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (HDgX3)

382 #272 Of course they can find another Obama: Michelle.

What? You say she isn't qualified? In the nation of personality cult, that doesn't matter. Their dream guy wil be right there with her!

Oh frabjous day, calloo-callay! President Michelle!

I am serious. See if it doesn't happen.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (GoIUi)

383 We should've nominated Rick Perry. If he'd lost, at least a lot of the advice for Republicans to moderate on their views would have some foundation in reality since at least Perry's solid on the platform as it is.

But we keep picking small-C RINO types like McCain and Romney thinking they'll play the media game better and what happens? They wind up turning off the base and losing anyway.

Posted by: Jason at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (7L6l7)

384 we need the so cons, the fiscal cons, the paul suppoters, but what we need more is a media vehicle that is much more public.
music, tv shows, news with funner people, for younger people
and a long time plan to infiltrate as they have in education.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (hX8cq)

385 99 "I pretty much agree with Ace. Who else would have been better? Early on I feared the Romney campaign machine when they recruited and managed Meg Whitman. Even at a GOP event, she had the most bland, evasive answers to every issue. It was like she was a robot programmed by the self-hating Right. But I thought his own team would somehow be different. Guess not."

This was my own concern about Romney. I live in CA and saw the Meg Whitman campaign firsthand. So much money down the drain. Ad after ad after ad touting her experience, her competence, how great she would be for the economy. Didn't matter one bit. All the electorate saw was a rich white woman who couldn't identify with them.

From now on we need just two things out of our candidate: conservatism and charisma. Find a conservative with charisma and we have a chance. No charisma, no chance, end of story.

Marco Rubio might be our guy.

Posted by: Galadriel at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (xG0vx)

386 Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (tVTLU)

But... the article Ace posted did have some very good points...

There were LARGE issues which Romney could not bring up.... becuase of HIS past positions...

Environment? out... Romney did a Cap and Trade...
Gun Control? out....
Abortion?.... we saw how that played, Romney could not attack...
Illegal Immigration???... crickets...
Heck... he did not even attack on Fast and Furious, or Bengahazi, or Illegal Wars... or ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN Financing...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (lZBBB)

387 by 'more', * i meant immediately

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (hX8cq)

388 also Romney-Ryan tried very hard "not to care" about Teh Social Issues, as in, they didn't talk about them much. of course they didn't rewrite the Republican platform either. but I get that's what the "who cares" crowd wants the next guy to do.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (60GaT)

389 I'm not sure that a lot of persuadable voters existed in the last election among those that actually voted.

Are there any votes to be mined from among the 30% of the electorate that didn't vote at all? How do we get a disproportionate share of these potential voters?

Posted by: toby928© says The Ukraine is weak at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (evdj2)

390 Tasker,

In 3 years he'll be ready.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (tVTLU)

391 All the polls said that the one guy, Gene "Ric" Republican, would easily
defeat Obama. Everyone seemed to like him. I wonder why he didn't run?


I did, but you fuckers weren't interested in hearing about my awesome hockey skills.

Posted by: Tim Pawlenty at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (SY2Kh)

392 and again, for the donk voters don't care about society and values?

Obama ran to the right and left on those. He got the gays, he got the blacks and muslims. He got the abortionists, he got the catholics. Maybe they didn't care.

Or maybe, they didn't know.

romney's strategy was "it's the economy, stupid"

But what he was missing is the corrollary to the 1992 slogan.

Never go full economy without an H Ross Perot running to siphon off the other guy's votes.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (QxSug)

393 Being a TruCon means never having to say you're sorry. Anytime a candidate loses, it's because they weren't conservative enough.

The idiots that make this case that Romney being a "RINO" is why we lost are the same exact people that thought Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle were super awesome picks that were going to win because they'd turn out the "base."

The only candidate that actually ran that had a better shot than Romney was probably Pawlenty, and that was mainly because of his more blue-collar upbringing would have been harder to demonize, but he was a thoroughly bland candidate that excited no one.

At some point, we have to recognize that we have an issues problem, not a candidate problem. If the GOP netted 7-8 Senate seats but Romney lost, I think you could make a case that we had a candidate problem, but we lost even in the reddest of states like Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, etc.

And also, if anyone "sat out" because they felt Romney was insufficiently conservative, those are the absolute LAST people we need to be chasing after for votes.

Posted by: McAdams at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (sxk7T)

394 >>>Posted by: Todd Akin

Early for the DOWN WITH THE SOCON troll. Oh well.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 06:30 PM (TRNea)

395 Ace, Dude, I don't know what to say to you. I thought Mitt would win too. I wanted Perry, but alas, he's too good of a shot, since he shot himself in the foot early.

The biggest thing we had going with Mitt was that it was "His Turn." That worked out so well in '08, the RNC just had to do it again.

But also, I was looking for a candidate that could explain the timeless principles of conservatism and how they have benefitted the country in the past and how TFG is bringing everyone's standard of living down by his embrace of Big Fucking Government. We did not have one. Mitt tried (see his whiteboard), but he never got going with that argument, one that I agree desperately needed to be made. We have a lot of Prog brainwashing to overcome.

So, I'm resigned to watching it burn, preferably with a cold beer in hand. I'm tired of trying to educate the 14 readers on my blog. I did my best. Whatever it takes to have a successful blog and make a positive difference in American political discourse, I don't have it. I did the best I knew how, but it wasn't good enough to wake enough people up.

Fuck it. Let. It. Burn. The best part of beating your head against a wall is, it feels great when you stop.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 28, 2012 06:30 PM (lOmbq)

396 382
#272 Of course they can find another Obama: Michelle.

What? You
say she isn't qualified? In the nation of personality cult, that doesn't
matter. Their dream guy wil be right there with her!

Oh frabjous day, calloo-callay! President Michelle!

I am serious. See if it doesn't happen.


Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 06:28 PM (GoIUi)

whew, i guess that would not surprise me at this point.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:30 PM (hX8cq)

397 that's how George the W broke Clinton's serve in 2000. he went full values with a side serving of Green Party lunacy.

Here's a fun 2012 fact:

Who got a million votes that should have gone to romney?

some ass monkey libertarian

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:30 PM (QxSug)

398 economic armageddon.

yes.

well. so the fed/TPTB - first they pump up stock market (90s). then that bubble pops and they pump up RE (00s, oh I so remember this! all the dotcom fortunates bought lovely McMansions).

then that crashes and they pump up stocks again (now, but it's ending)

the rub is, they aren't going to be able to pump up RE again. so what next? Armageddon Time.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:31 PM (J6kXj)

399 Rubio is actually in a great position, he can go hard on conservative principles since he will be outvoted anyway.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:31 PM (tVTLU)

400 Hello.


Posted by: Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate 2000 at November 28, 2012 06:25 PM (dZ756)
________________Yes and they learned that lesson quickly. Libertarians on the other hand need to be hit over the head 1000 times to figure it out.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:31 PM (HDgX3)

401 "What we REALLY need to do, is change the Electoral System... so that each Congressional District is a mini election for THAT Electoral Vote, then whoever wins the State gets the Two Senator Votes...."

Cut, jib newsletter, constitutional amendment

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 06:31 PM (KCvsd)

402 142 I don't have any answers because the election outcome still doesn't make sense to me. We have gas prices up the ass, trillions in debt, no jobs, lay offs everywhere, pathetic foreign affairs, a stupid President who does NOTHING but play golf, delegate and make mistakes. And he likes to surround himself with radical lefties to make policy.

Our worthless President ran against a strong family man, a successful business man, a decent, hard working, American loving man.

How we lost is a mystery to me. A sad mystery.
Posted by: mare at November 28, 2012 05:43 PM (A98Xu)

Not a mystery at all. Look, turning your tv, watch for a couple of hours in prime time, and then re-read what you wrote. The first part about the SCOAMF, well guess what. All the heros on tv and in the movies right now are the fuck ups. The decent, hard working, moral man who loves his family is either portrayed as a completely out of touch relic of the past or is the villain who we find OT has been secretly beating his family and eating puppies he skins alive in his basement.

Most people absorb that crap and assimilate it into their worldview, even if they don't mean to. And I should know, I'm related to a whole pile of mushy middle folks who love them some sitcoms and crime dramas and reality tv. If you sit down and have a long, philosophical conversation with them, they usually end up conceding that you're right. But they usually avoid that kind of stuff altogether and make their decisions, including who to vote for, mostly on the emotional reactions to "types."

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 28, 2012 06:31 PM (qFpRI)

403 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (dZ756)

So, did you check the dates?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:32 PM (vIRPd)

404 >>>>I just haven't seen the case made that we should have nominated this specific candidate, say Gingrich, and he would have won

Mkay. But that's an impossible case to make, as it cannot possibly happen now.

Because that is the past.

This is the reason conventional wisdom exists and why the next R candidate will be another "electable" candidate. And he or she may or may not win or lose, but it won't really matter either way.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 28, 2012 06:32 PM (J4gw3)

405 #398, the plan was student loans, now that has failed. I get the feeling the next plan will involve immigrants somehow.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 06:32 PM (KCvsd)

406 And also, if anyone "sat out" because they felt Romney was insufficiently conservative, those are the absolute LAST people we need to be chasing after for votes.

Posted by: McAdams at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (sxk7T)I didn't sit out but I'm voting Democrat from now on. Chase your Dem-lite candidates to hell and back, they won't save you. Nothing can save you now. Do the math.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:33 PM (1Y+hH)

407 Nope. Won't matter have to wait dormant until Obama retires in about 16 years.
----
Retires? My dream is that the last I see him, he's being evacuated from the roof of the WH, headed for exile in Kenya. But my dreams never come true.

Posted by: Whatev at November 28, 2012 06:33 PM (2t6Gz)

408 397
that's how George the W broke Clinton's serve in 2000. he went full values with a side serving of Green Party lunacy.



Here's a fun 2012 fact:



Who got a million votes that should have gone to romney?



some ass monkey libertarian

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now?

Please, if Clinton had been able to run for a 3rd term, George Bush would be a stain on a sidewalk somewhere. Best candidate Bush could have run against (mainstreamly) was Gore.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:33 PM (dZ756)

409 **Gene "Ric" Republican**

I like that.

Here's my preferred Republican: Lee Atwater.

Before my time, but I hear he did good.

Tpaw was generic, true, but he pulled a Palin and dropped out.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:33 PM (QxSug)

410 390 Tasker,

In 3 years he'll be ready.
Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:29 PM (tVTLU)

_________________

Possible.

The other problem with Romney might have been he had been out of politics for so long.

Carter had a loyal bunch from Georiga that he knew would not screw him.

Sort of the same for other Presidential candidates.

It's quite possible Romney had to trust people and staff that he shouldn't have.

Alos I think the next Republican primary winner should pick one of the candidates he ran against to consolidate and unite the base.

It couldn't hurt.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:34 PM (r2PLg)

411
"...RINOs once again didn't listen to TrueCons and destroyed everything."
That's also an argument for collectivism and authoritarianism.
I've noticed, over the last ten years or so, that the definition of RINO has been broadly expanded to include anyone who doesn't adhere to a strict and lengthy set of (often mutually exclusive) belief systems.
Every position counter tothe least jot and tittle of TrueCons ideologyis accused of being 'no true conservative.'
When someone like William F Buckley is accused of not ever having been a conservative to begin with, you've got to know that you folks have jumped your trolley completely off the tracks.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 28, 2012 06:34 PM (WwR1j)

412 SFgoth. ok, I am not going to refight the 2000 election. But remember that fucking Gore wasn't returning uncle bill's phone calls at the time.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:34 PM (QxSug)

413 403
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:23 PM (dZ756)



So, did you check the dates?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

What are you talking about Mitt?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:34 PM (dZ756)

414 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (SY2Kh)

Sure. Everyone who isn't you/agrees with you 100% is stupid. And the proof of this is that you call everyone who isn't you/agrees with you 100% stupid.



(Yes, 100% might be hyperbole, but if you try a little harder, you might get there...)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:35 PM (vIRPd)

415 Crap. Once again, I come upon a thread too late to avoid saying what already has been said. So, whatever.

FWIW, I wasn't a Romney supporter until his nomination was inevitable, but at that point I didn't have any problem supporting him whole-heartedly. I thought that, unlike in 2008, the process had worked insofar as we got the candidate who would get the most support. I still think that.

Moreover, I was pleasantly surprised with his campaign. He convinced me that he was a sincere conservative, if a rather mild one. He made the right Veep choice, and in general made the case quite strongly that he was by far the better choice for the country.

His not winning is pretty much on the Right, at least those among us who did not vote for him. This was a strict choice of A or Not-A, and anyone who did not choose the clear choice voted for the narcissist (and was in fact one himself).

Having said this, in retrospect I think Romney would have done better had he been more bellicose. Nowadays, qualities such as bellicosity, vulgarity, and hubris are considered to be indications of authenticity, of sincerity. By the same token, cordiality, restraint, and politeness are considered milquetoast, wimpy, even RINOish.

Not that Romney should have matched Obama's tone, but he should have been unafraid to react with righteous anger when the situation clearly called for it, which was pretty much every day.

Of course, you can blame that on his listening to RINO consultants, but the buck stops with him.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at November 28, 2012 06:35 PM (IlZPo)

416 Social issues need to be dealt with at the State level, the federal Republican plank should be all about getting the Feds out of social (and education) policy. Let the State parties fight the Culture War locally.

Abortion, not my concern, call your Governor. Gay Marriage, good luck with that in Texas. Free condoms, was that an enumerated power the States granted to the Feds? find the discussion of it in the Federalist papers or date a better class of man who can afford his own condoms.

Either that, or go all in Article 5 with a personhood amendment that defines life, death, and birthright citizenship.

Posted by: Jean at November 28, 2012 06:35 PM (tmzN0)

417 They vote for a guy who has 0% chance of winning and elect the Democrat. Nice work Montana libertarians.


Yah, but winning with you guys did 0% good for us 2000-2006.


For that matter, there is a DEMOCRAT sponsored bill in the house federalizing Marijuana laws that has the words 'States Rights' in the title, it's having trouble finding GOP sponsors and bigshot republican committee chairs seem likely to kill it.


Know how to make a conservative republican quote that idiot Nancy Pelosi verbatim?


Ask him which part of the constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate the consumption of vegetables.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:35 PM (YUttk)

418 the rub is, they aren't going to be able to pump up RE again. so what next? Armageddon Time.Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:31 PM (J6kXj)



___ ___ ____ ____ ____ ___


What's next is cutting the dollar's value approximately in half over the next 10 years, which means everyone loses about half their wealth, and very few will be able to build any wealth. This is will a slow-motion Armageddon.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:35 PM (1Y+hH)

419 I'm remembering McAdams as a stealth lefty who thought he was superclever

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 06:35 PM (60GaT)

420 Can we have another fun thread? I've been angry and depressed since the election, and post mortems like this don't help.

Anyhow, when I win Powerball tonight, I hereby swear to Ace and the Horde that I will pay to up-grade this blog.

Ace knows where to find me.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:36 PM (UOM48)

421 412
SFgoth. ok, I am not going to refight the 2000 election. But remember
that fucking Gore wasn't returning uncle bill's phone calls at the time.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now?

Your point? Gore was as close to destestable as you can get and win your party's nomination. Even SNL clowned him.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:36 PM (dZ756)

422 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:34 PM (dZ756)

A little prick called Daschle.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (vIRPd)

423 s everyone loses about half their wealth, and very few will be able to build any wealth. This is will a slow-motion Armageddon.

no it won't.

going bankrupt always starts slowly . . . then all at once. once the point has been hit. boom.

there is no wealth to halve.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (J6kXj)

424 Move on to preparing for economic Armageddon. Worrying over politicians is a complete waste of time. None of them are going to a damn thing that will save you.
Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:27 PM (1Y+hH)


-------------------------------------------------


I'll agree with you as far as national level politics is concerned. Our political focus should be with the states, especially the red states. They will be the key to at least holding on to some semblance of the American way of life. There is going to be burning and it's going to be in the blue states. When people start to pull themselves out of the ashes, they'll need examples to direct them.

The red states are the key.

Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (gZe+5)

425 417

the GOP of '01-'07 failed for a lot of reasons but being against the choom ain't one of 'em in my book

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (60GaT)

426 The comment upthread about the difference between presidential elections and off-years is very important, and underscores a critical point:

There are more Dems in this country than Repubs, but Repubs are more politically active. Dems attach to personality more than governance.

Romney would've been an outstanding president, but he didn't have the personality ("cares about us") than Obama. And this is getting to be a major problem in which gridlock will reign.

We've talked about how the GOP has won the popular vote ONCE since 1988 in presidential elections.

The Dems have won the popular vote ONCE since 1990 in the midterms (GOP gains in 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2010).

The problem is fielding a candidate so pathetic that we lose the House in presidential years (hello, John McCain!).

At the very least, Romney did his part in maintaining the status quo.

Posted by: The Q at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (w4fEE)

427 And also, if anyone "sat out" because they felt Romney was
insufficiently conservative, those are the absolute LAST people we need
to be chasing after for votes.


Suicidal maniacs aren't a constituency I care about.

A year ago, I started out swearing I'd vote for Obama over Romney (burn it down), or sit it out. Romney/Ryan changed my mind, not Obama. Romney/Ryan got me on board in a way I never expected to happen.

Romney/Ryan offered me that tiny shred of hope that burning it down might actually be avoidable.

He was the right candidate to execute a turnaround, but he lost. So now I'm back to BURN IT THE FUCK DOWN.

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 28, 2012 06:38 PM (Anjf+)

428 It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (dZ756)

429 Since 1928 no GOP ticket has won without a Nixon or a Bush.

So I say Bush/Nixon 2016!!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (HDgX3)

430 Q, one point is that JEF was first donk presidizzle to win majority vote in election since 1976.

Those #'s are skewed because of H.R.Perot who siphoned off GOP numbers. Then...I guess paradigm shift, we need to siphon off some donk #'s now.

probably because of the clinton generation conflating Gingrich's policies with Clinton being in the white house.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (QxSug)

431 #360 Ha! Would this be like everyone thought Obama wasn't likable?

I am telling you they have spent 4 years promoting her as a "caring, busy, mom," a fashionista, a supporter of military families, the hostess who throws elegant parties.

This is ALL a good section of the electorate cares about. Do you think Obama voters care about agricultural subsidies or other wonkish stuff? No. They are voting like we are in American Idol. Add in those people who want to see a woman president and she will likely get the nomination, unless Andrew Cuomo goes postal on her.

Evita Peron. I rest my case.


Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 06:40 PM (GoIUi)

432 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (dZ756)

Does that go for Socons too?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:40 PM (vIRPd)

433 the GOP of '01-'07 failed for a lot of reasons but being against the choom ain't one of 'em in my book



We're not talking about your book, you were talking about libertarians.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:40 PM (YUttk)

434 Ryan went as far as any major candidate has ever gone in supporting the choom vote, and they still went for the loser. Screw them.

Posted by: Jean at November 28, 2012 06:41 PM (LnQr8)

435 We need to be thinking about red states and red counties. Nationally we should not even bother with politics. Let it run it's course. Start preparing to be successful all the way through. There will be plenty of money to be made the whole time.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 28, 2012 06:41 PM (J4gw3)

436 It's the media, Stupids.


We can go on and on and on about the glaring flaws in our Palins, Santorums, Bachmanns, Gingriches, etc., but the current WH Occupant has just as much, if not more baggage than any of our folks do. He had it going into his first election and he has added to it with an official record that makes Nixon look like a choirboy. And how did Obama's baggage affect him?


A more apt, non-rhetorical question would be why hasn't Obama's baggage affected him?



I guess that one's rhetorical too.



The realities we've been shown after this last election is that the rumors of the death of the MBM have been greatly exaggerated. They're not doing well, but they're still too influential. We not only need to keep discrediting them, but we need a candidate and an RNC who knows how to handle them. Romney and the RNC failed miserably on this point.


All other discussion at this point is secondary.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (uD2fR)

437 Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:40 PM (YUttk)

We're talking about a lot of things. Apparently some people can only talk about one thing at a time.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (vIRPd)

438 428
It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a
Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian
than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".
______________________________

And that kind of idiocy is why the Democrats have an extra vote in the Senate

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (HDgX3)

439 Local media going for a week long special on the fiscal cliff. Looks like the machine has gotten the infomercial order from their boyfriend.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (KCvsd)

440 432
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (dZ756)



Does that go for Socons too?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Does what? You have the advantage of knowing what post you're responding to.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (dZ756)

441 The more I think about the more I think Perry or Gingrich would have done better than Mitt.

What voters did Mitt have that either would have lost? The reality is both would have done better with the group that killed Mitt...people making under $50K. Both would have cut into Obama's lead with Hispanics (not that that would have mattered much).

Romney apologists keep pointing to the 300K or so votes it would have taken to have won the electoral vote. Well, a lot of those votes were people who stayed home in Ohio. Perry and Newt would have done better their and maybe (we'll never know) peeled off enough in VA and FL.

Even if no one else who ran would have won, I want to kill the mindset that led us to Mitt...the myth of technocratic electability. We sold everything we believed in to a guy who mouthed the words some wanted to hear but didn't believe them, couldn't explain or sell them to anyone who didn't already agree.

Romney was every inch the crappy candidate many said he was, we should have no remorse in dumping on him the people who pushed him from the start.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 28, 2012 06:43 PM (x8U/s)

442 "436 It's the media, Stupids.


We can go on and on and on about the glaring flaws in our Palins, Santorums, Bachmanns, Gingriches, etc., but the current WH Occupant has just as much, if not more baggage than any of our folks do. He had it going into his first election and he has added to it with an official record that makes Nixon look like a choirboy. And how did Obama's baggage affect him?


A more apt, non-rhetorical question would be why hasn't Obama's baggage affected him?



I guess that one's rhetorical too.



The realities we've been shown after this last election is that the rumors of the death of the MBM have been greatly exaggerated. They're not doing well, but they're still too influential. We not only need to keep discrediting them, but we need a candidate and an RNC who knows how to handle them. Romney and the RNC failed miserably on this point.


All other discussion at this point is secondary.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (uD2fR) "

This.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:43 PM (vIRPd)

443 going bankrupt always starts slowly . . . then all at once. once the point has been hit. boom.

there is no wealth to halve.Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (J6kXj)___ ____ ____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___Wewon't go bankrupt. We will simply devalue our currency enough to keep going. This won't lead to a total collapse as has happened to some countries in the past. When things get more desperate some years out, we will unleash our energy capabilities which will add a little to GDP. The math says that at the cost of half our wealth we can survive. That's what the PTB are going to take from us. I suggest you prepare, and I wish you good luck.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:43 PM (1Y+hH)

444 438
428

It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a

Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian

than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".
______________________________

And that kind of idiocy is why the Democrats have an extra vote in the Senate


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo

Let's turn it around; if every Republican voted Libertarian.... With attitudes like this, welcome to permanent minority status. Is it any wonder they call the GOP the stupid party?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:45 PM (dZ756)

445 "440 432
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (dZ756)



Does that go for Socons too?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Does what? You have the advantage of knowing what post you're responding to.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (dZ756) "

Well, if you can't use the time stamp to identify your own post...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:45 PM (vIRPd)

446 It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".


LOFL. Heh. Yup... thing is, the kind of people who feel entitled to tell you how to organize your fridge also feel entitled to tell you who to vote for.


It's like a sheep that don't make woo, we're ripping them off. They really seem to feel like they've been cheated because we don't seem to realize we belong to them.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:45 PM (YUttk)

447 pro-weed litmus tests for all future Republicans yo

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 06:45 PM (60GaT)

448 at least this time our VP nominee didn't cost us the election.

Romney Ryan was a fairly awesome ticket. Bad strategy. But they were advised by the best and brightest (tm).

So who knows. We don't know what happened, really, on election day. Romney needed to maintain that 5 point lead but alas he was falling by tuesday to at least even...which with voterfraud margin of theft, is about a 2 point loss.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:46 PM (QxSug)

449 it is possible to be a christian and a libertarian (notice small "L")

and that is the direction the party needs to take if it ever wants to be relevant topeople again yet still maintain most of it'straditional base.

i don't like abortion, I don't like gay marriage, I am apprehensive about lifting the prohibition on drugs.

but i realize, that I am going to have to put up with some things that I don't like if I ever want to be free again.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 06:46 PM (jdOk/)

450 I think if Paul would been nominated he would have garnered all of Romney's voters plus a large chunk Obama's. Most Republicans would have "held their noses" and voted for Paul even tho many would never admit it until, oh... 18 months into his term when things would have started to improve.

Posted by: Iggy at November 28, 2012 06:47 PM (5Cwv4)

451 The red states are the key.Posted by: Soona at November 28, 2012 06:37 PM (gZe+5)Living in a red county in a redstate is certainly a good idea, I'll give you that. It won't save your wealth, butshouldmake for a little better living, at least for the next5 years or so.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:48 PM (1Y+hH)

452 "446 It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".


LOFL. Heh. Yup... thing is, the kind of people who feel entitled to tell you how to organize your fridge also feel entitled to tell you who to vote for.


It's like a sheep that don't make woo, we're ripping them off. They really seem to feel like they've been cheated because we don't seem to realize we belong to them.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:45 PM (YUttk) "

Free speech is evil. Good point. Libertarian.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:48 PM (vIRPd)

453 Tasker,

I agree 100%. Romney did not have real soldiers in the field. He had the best money can buy.

Money does not buy everything. For your true blue confidants, you need blood fucking oaths. Go to the war with real soldiers, and you never have to watch your back.

RR relied on a lot of lily white country club little fuckers who were in it for the buck and nothing else.

ANOTHER BURNING QUESTION:

We have been so focused on our 2016 guy, who in the fuck is on deck for the Dems??? thoughts??

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:48 PM (tVTLU)

454 So was it the demographic shift of new americans becoming:

hispanic shanty town living completely on fed handouts?
ObamaphoneLady?
Liberal white pukes in fancy no-show high pay jobs with no performance review?

or is America a pr0ned out nation with gay in the brain and pot in our lungs?

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:49 PM (QxSug)

455 Fuck Steve Baldwin

Posted by: grease monkey at November 28, 2012 06:49 PM (VSWPU)

456 A co-worker went to law school with Nevada Governor Sandoval (R and Hispanic).Co-worker said ona personal level,Sandoval was a nice guy. Ambitious (not a bad thing given our somewhat lackluster field the last time around...) but agood guy.Does anyone know anything about Sandoval's politics?

I'm also curious whether we (the moron set) should start looking for our our guy, and pushing our choice of candidates NOW (not just on the "establishment," but on the candidate too), before we end up with another flock of "meh" to sift through?

The last four years have shown me that blogs can create buzz, at least among those who attempt to inform themselves. If we start the "OMG[our guy]is AWESOME" buzz, somebody else will pick it up (or rip it off, but either way, the buzz gets louder - good, no?), and before long, our guy is "the favorite" or "the frontrunner" or whatever. I think that's how we can end up with our chosen guy, rather than picking among the turds who throw themselves into the race.

If we have to have a Hispanic next time around, I love Marco Rubio but I love a governor more. Granted, it's not like Nevada is a big state that's doing particularly well, but Billy Jeff proved you can be elected coming from a small, not doing so well place.

Posted by: the other coyote at November 28, 2012 06:50 PM (yK44T)

457 453We have been so focused on our 2016 guy, who in the fuck is on deck for the Dems??? thoughts??

----------

The two candidates I've heard bandied about so far have been Joe Biden and Michelle Obama.

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at November 28, 2012 06:50 PM (NmR1a)

458 It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a

Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian

than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".

so not being for Higher taxes, Romney stated about smaller govt.

what more is wanted?
you have to be shmoozed like th abortion andd BC voters?

less evil IS LESS

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:50 PM (hX8cq)

459 "449 it is possible to be a christian and a libertarian (notice small "L")

and that is the direction the party needs to take if it ever wants to be relevant topeople again yet still maintain most of it'straditional base.

i don't like abortion, I don't like gay marriage, I am apprehensive about lifting the prohibition on drugs.

but i realize, that I am going to have to put up with some things that I don't like if I ever want to be free again.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 06:46 PM (jdOk/) "

What do abortion and Gay marriage have to do with libertarianism? When does self-ownership begin? What is marriage?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (vIRPd)

460 That 5 point lead was from Gallup and an outlier.

At best, Romney had a 2-3 pt. lead in Rasmussen/Gallup, and as well all know now, they were using a likely voter screen that underestimated the amount of minorities Choom Boy could turnout.

In pretty much all the polls proved correct, Romney never led in this election. That 1st debate got him close, but equilibrium returned right around Sandy. It technically started before the storm hit, but fuck it, I'm blaming Chris Christie for it anyway because that's how I'm rolling.

Posted by: The Q at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (w4fEE)

461 **RR relied on a lot of lily white country club little fuckers who were in it for the buck and nothing else. **

I wonder, you think a guy who ran in Massachusetts would know how to play hard ball.

Then again, the same old BS popped up, black panthers in philly, voters voting twice, military ballot messed with, union thugs busing people around.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (QxSug)

462 Jean/416:

EXACTLY!!! And it fits together so perfectly with our platform. My personal issues are such and such.

But I am running for FEDERAL OFFICE. And my main concern is getting the federal bureaucrat politicians out of our schools, out of our bedrooms, off our fucking backs.

So it doesn't matter. Each state will decide these matters.
NEXT FUCKING QUESTION. It's the perfect answer, and yet it somehow escapes these fools. And it's OUR CORE BELIEF.... So no one is pandering to shit or giving up principles to woo some vaginas.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (tVTLU)

463 >>>Let's turn it around; if every Republican voted Libertarian

Well if Libertarians didn't make additional freedom their priority ahead of additional responsibility it would be a lot easier to support many of their planks.

Oh and if so many of them figured out that abortion is not a libertarian issue...Oh and neither is gay marriage. Both of those common complaints run counter to any rational libertarian philosophy.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (TRNea)

464 445
"440 432

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:39 PM (dZ756)


Does that go for Socons too?


Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney


Does what? You have the advantage of knowing what post you're responding to.


Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:42 PM (dZ756) "


Well, if you can't use the time stamp to identify your own post...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Ya know, it'd be easier for everyone (i.e., context) if you quoted the post you're responding to. If I had responded with "yes", then that means nothing unless you expect everyone to scroll up. <<--<< >>-->>

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (dZ756)

465 The more I think about the more I think Perry or Gingrich would have done better than Mitt.

__________________________

Probably not.

You can't simply replace Mitt with either Perry or Newt and claim the attack environment would have been the same.

Perry would have been painted as the Texas Governor, AF pilot--Bush III , and Newt would have had a whole bunch of attacks made on him.

Full front , flank and rear.

There also is the simple fact that neither of them could beat Romney-when only competing for Republican voters.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (r2PLg)

466 We're talking about a lot of things. Apparently some people can only talk about one thing at a time.


You're talking to people who aren't even talking to you. I quoted someone else in response to them, and you're complaining I'm not keeping up with what you're talking about?


Because I wasn't responding to you brainiac.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (YUttk)

467
"Opinion: Why, Damn These RINOs For Ruining Everything"

______ _____ ____ _____ _____ ____ ___

Should Read: Republicans and Democrats have conspired to ruin the financial foundation of America. They have succeeded. Yourfocusnow should be surviving what they as a team have already brought about, which will unfold over the next ten years.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (1Y+hH)

468 Posted by: the other coyote at November 28, 2012 06:50 PM (yK44T)

Sandoval is pro-choice. In other words, he'll never get a sniff at the nomination.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (x8U/s)

469 all i wanted from Romney was to stay out of my life.

with Obama there was NO chance .

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (hX8cq)

470 Oh sweet, I came in just in time for the libertarians to start making politics all about weed.


Bless their little hearts.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (uD2fR)

471 BTW, the Kos Kidz are already coming out against Cuomo for not being liberal enough.

Look for the blogs to push for someone like a Martin O'Malley, O v2.0 up in Boston, or maybe the fat guy from Montana (long shot).

Nothing matters if Hillary does run, but I still say that won't happen.

Posted by: The Q at November 28, 2012 06:53 PM (w4fEE)

472 HOORAY for IRS, and TSA and EPA, and NEA!

they all won.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:53 PM (hX8cq)

473
We have been so focused on our 2016 guy, who in the fuck is on deck for the Dems??? thoughts??

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:48 PM (tVTLU


They have a trifecta: Biden, Mooch, and Hildebeast.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:53 PM (UOM48)

474 #441 Drew, I can tell you that if Gingrich had been the candidate my sisters would have stayed home. They are GOP converts, but they despise Gingrich. We would have listened to 24/7 ads about Newt's love life. Plus Callista was creepy looking.

I still think Perry would have been a good president, but his errors in the debates were bad, and there is no guarantee he would have done better debating with Obama. Plus he was Bush's lieutenant governor, so he would have been tarred with that.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 06:54 PM (GoIUi)

475 I have a feeling that the people who are in the Electability mindset are also the ones who will vote straight R no matter what. I'd at least wager that there is significant overlap.

I don't think the argument is libertarian / SoCon or RINO / TrueConservative, I think its the Fraidy Cat vote. The GOP only wants votes. If they can get enough of the Fraidy Cat vote they can stay in power.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 28, 2012 06:54 PM (J4gw3)

476 458
It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a

Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian

than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".
so not being for Higher taxes, Romney stated about smaller govt.
what more is wanted?
you have to be shmoozed like th abortion andd BC voters?

less evil IS LESS


Posted by: willow

Maybe they saw the guy who signed Romneycare into law and realized that talk is cheap? You can rationalize and blame all you want, but that won't get votes.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:54 PM (dZ756)

477 "Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (dZ756) "

I quote what I feel like quoting. Since you're a Libertarian, I guess you wouldn't understand...



Now, address my fucking point.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:55 PM (vIRPd)

478 That 1st debate got him close, but equilibrium returned right around Sandy. It technically started before the storm hit, but fuck it, I'm blaming Chris Christie for it anyway because that's how I'm rolling.
Posted by: The Q at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (w4fEE)

______________________

Sandy did two things--

it took Benghazi off the radar, and The Dems and the media ran an infomercial for--

Global Warming.

Cuomo--Global Warming.

NBC--had that bald weatherman from the Weather Channel rolling out--Global warming Theory--and of course even little Mayor Bloomberg pimped it.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:55 PM (r2PLg)

479 sfgoth. wel lsham on them then.

so expanding ALL parts of the govt was a fair trade for anger?

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:56 PM (hX8cq)

480 Puppies. Let's heal with puppies...

Posted by: Walkers! at November 28, 2012 05:16 PM (TYO2p)



Here be puppies.

http://bit.ly/VeTPbl

Posted by: alexthechick at November 28, 2012 06:56 PM (Gk3SS)

481 Perry only got into the race because the field was so weak. And he went from dealing with the Bastrop fire directly to the debate.

He'll do better next time.
Posted by: Invictus at November 28, 2012 06:21 PM (OQpzc)

Perry also had back surgery less than a month before. They would not have been able to use OWS against Perry. I love Rick Perry, he's an optimist with a genuine smile on his face. He will do better in 2016.

We also need to have a limit on republican candidates and debate moderators have to be conservative or impartial. The GOP has to change primaries to closed, Iowa and NH do not go first. First primaries should be in Red States and Blue States, fair for both parties. Same tour states.

The R candidates have to remember Reagan's rule and not speak so ill of each other, especially at debates because all that is used by the dems and media to trash our nominee once they clinch it.

Romney should have quit the Obama is a nice guy bullshit. TFG is not a nice guy! That really pissed me off, Romney should have been more aggressive in his attacks on TFG, he was horrible to his fellow candidates that throated him.

Posted by: CarolT at November 28, 2012 06:56 PM (z4WKX)

482 "What do abortion and Gay marriage have to do with libertarianism? When does self-ownership begin? What is marriage? Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (vIRPd)


because (most) libertarians see these issues as a matter of personal choice and not the rightful domain of government.

(most) conservatives do see these issues as being in the governmental domain.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 06:56 PM (jdOk/)

483 Posted by: Miss Marple at November 28, 2012 06:54 PM (GoIUi)

Well it's not like Mitt's by all accounts stellar marriage got us many points.

There were a lot of issues that I thought would get thrown at Romney (Mormon, flip-flopper) that never really showed up the way it was feared (Romnesia was lame and half-hearted).

Maybe Newt's affairs would have shown up, maybe not.

That's the problem with the demand to "tell me who else we should have gone with", it's unknowable counter-factuals. All we know for sure is Romney sucked.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 28, 2012 06:57 PM (x8U/s)

484 "466 We're talking about a lot of things. Apparently some people can only talk about one thing at a time.


You're talking to people who aren't even talking to you. I quoted someone else in response to them, and you're complaining I'm not keeping up with what you're talking about?


Because I wasn't responding to you brainiac.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 06:52 PM (YUttk) "

You missed the point. I guess weed really isn't all that good for you...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:57 PM (vIRPd)

485 #454

So get this, on the local evening news last night is a sob story about an illegal woman who is being deported because she committed a crime (shoplifting at Macy's). The news wanted us to feel real bad that two of her three anchor babies are special needs. The story did admit thatMedicaid pays for her kidstreatment. Only a passing mention of the father of her brood, whom she is not married to.

I did a quick calculation and came up with the following:

Section 8 housing (why she is not married to the father), WIC (she needs to continue to have an 'infant' in the family to collect), AFDC, Social Security disability plus disability cash, Medicaid... shall I continue? Quite an excellent standard of living provided courtesy of US taxpayer. Of course there's nothing stopping her from taking her kids back to Mexico with her, but the news didn't think about that angle.

Posted by: the other coyote at November 28, 2012 06:57 PM (yK44T)

486 So how 'bout them Buckeyes?

All dressed up and nowhere to go...

Posted by: ErikW on the damned phone at November 28, 2012 06:58 PM (4v0P2)

487 Three beers, and a large Jack and Coke down - My only opinion is that the next person I hear say "Wait for it... wait for it..." gets punched in the face.

Posted by: Whatev at November 28, 2012 06:58 PM (2t6Gz)

488 wonder how long it will be until they park all cars over the age of 10.

because f global warming.
how about demand no-one use their fire places ANYWHERE?
how about them 401k's ? how about telling us how we can think or what we are Allowed to say in public or what Videos we are allowed to put on youtube?

yes evil can be less.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 06:58 PM (hX8cq)

489 We have been so focused on our 2016 guy, who in the fuck is on deck for the Dems??? thoughts??

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:48 PM (tVTLU

_____________

Cuomo,and Deval Patrick--Axelrod prodigy.

And Obama's potential endorsement power will make Obama the Dem King Maker--for decades.

Posted by: tasker at November 28, 2012 06:59 PM (r2PLg)

490 463/JoeinDC:

If I'm in charge of poll watching in Philly, I get the fucking TRO court orders from the judge a week before the fucking election, I hire private detective with guns, and I bring my own fucking baseball bats to the party. Then when the fat obamaphone lady starts to try to shove me out of the polling place, I give her some fucking dental work and tell her to call the cops.

But that's just me.

This is what we fucking need. Blood in the streets. Not more donations...

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:59 PM (tVTLU)

491 What this thread needs is a cute kitteh. Or a puppeh.

Jeebus, I'm tired.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:59 PM (UOM48)

492 Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (tVTLU)

I think the problem is that it is OUR core belief... but not that of the Repub party in Washington...

Which IS a MAJOR problem.

Everytime we hand power to the Repubs in Washington... they GROW the Government and its Power...

EPA? DHS? Farm Susidies? Ethanol?

Heck... it was 1992 and George Bush who put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on steroids....

The HISTORY of the Repub party in the last 50 years does NOT show it has any small Government philosophy....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 06:59 PM (lZBBB)

493 "482 "What do abortion and Gay marriage have to do with libertarianism? When does self-ownership begin? What is marriage? Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (vIRPd)


because (most) libertarians see these issues as a matter of personal choice and not the rightful domain of government.

(most) conservatives do see these issues as being in the governmental domain.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 06:56 PM (jdOk/) "

Answer the questions. Libertarians seem to have a lot of teh ADD.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:00 PM (vIRPd)

494 Here's a cute kitteh to make you happy:

http://tinyurl.com/c22tsum

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:01 PM (UOM48)

495 anyway as far as weed, like most things leave it to the states.

srsly your lungs. none of my business


alex, tea, with a shot of something , something.

and a tissue, (for me) cuz i'm mad and all.
and the puppies are cute!

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 07:01 PM (hX8cq)

496 If Michelle Obama is deemed qualified and can win as the democratic candidate by being nothing other than zero's wife, I will light the first mother fucking torch on here to burn it all down.

Hilary: We need to hang Benghazi on her and do it hard.

Biden: Please say yes.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:01 PM (tVTLU)

497 What this thread needs is a cute kitteh. Or a puppeh.

Jeebus, I'm tired.
Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:59 PM (UOM4___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ Just the denial stage for some, Jane. It will end eventually. How's your son?

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 07:01 PM (1Y+hH)

498 What this thread needs is a cute kitteh. Or a puppeh.

Jeebus, I'm tired.


Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 06:59 PM (UOM4



For Jane:

Cute kitteh (yes, of the animal variety) - http://bit.ly/SffNXt


Cute puppeh (yes, of the animal variety) - http://bit.ly/U3pFkD

Posted by: alexthechick at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (Gk3SS)

499 477
"Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 06:51 PM (dZ756) "



I quote what I feel like quoting. Since you're a Libertarian, I guess you wouldn't understand...




Now, address my fucking point.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Alright, I will do so happily:

I wrote: 428 It's not a Libertarian's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Libertarian than "you're gonna get the other guy elected".

You wrote: Does that apply to soccons too?

My response: does what apply? I can't tell if you're referring to soccons appealing to Libertarians or Republicans (non-soccon Rs) or non-soccon Rs appealing to soccons. You've got so much ad-hom rage, your question makes no sense.

If your point weren't so fucking, maybe it'd make sense.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (dZ756)

500 Michigan Governor Won't Rule Out Dissolving City Of Detroit...

Woah, that's gonna take a lot of acid, Mr. White.

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (JEpGb)

501 66 It was when Todd Akin shoved his foot down his own throat. . .

Romney should have immediately flown to Missouri, and held a tarmac press conference right there and then, and said there was no place in the modern Republican party for someone holding those kinds of loopy views.

Romney had a golden opportunity to distance himself from the crazy-socon-agenda nonsense that the Democrats were trying and succeeding to link him to. Romney absolutely failed to sense and grasp that opportunity.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 28, 2012 05:30 PM

I disagree. I think it was actually a golden opportunity to go on the offensive against Obama's radical views on abortion. Romney most definitely could have used Akin's statement to his advantage, but not as a way to go on the defensive. Rather, go on the offensive. Enlighten the public about Obama's extremely radical belief in not only partial-birth abortion, but also infanticide. Use Akin's statement to pound home the fact that the ONLY thing Obama decided to not vote "present" on as a legislator in IL was infanticide (the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). In fact, not only did he decide to vote "no" on the act, he led the charge to defeat the act.

Imagine that strategy. Going on the offensive against both the media's silence on this matter and forcing Obama to make a statement about his pro-infanticide stance. Imagine a "President Death" meme starting. A "President Baby-Killer" meme starting.

THAT would have been the way to go. Enough defending ourselves from all these stupid accusations (and yes, it is a stupid accusation that just because ONE GOP member believes something, then the entire Republican Party believes it). Start turning every stupid accusation into an attack on the radical views of the Left/Democrats which the media cover up.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (vUK/h)

502 "because (most) libertarians see these issues as a matter of personal choice and not the rightful domain of government."

how is this functionally different from liberalism? It starts as "state choice, we can't have the federal government boss people around" but it always turns into the federal govt./courts having to "liberate" everybody, whether that's what you personally want or not.

libertarians saying "federalism! personal choice!" aren't gonna win against liberals saying Equality demands this, and a lot of libertarians'll probably just end up agreeing with the latter anyway, if they don't already.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (60GaT)

503 495/Willow:

Absolutely.

Romeo:

Yep, Reagan "grew" government, but that is defense. I'm always ok with more guns. Same thing with tax increases. He did it then and there but he FUNDAMENTALLY transformed taxes early on. That was the enchilada.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:03 PM (tVTLU)

504 another Dem prez candidate is Mayor Nutter.

yay.

see, Deval and Michael are going to be hard to beat - they're actual AMERICAN Blacks . . . not foreign-student African types.

I would say Deval, Mike and Michelle are the top picks, then Hillary and Andrew Cuomo.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 28, 2012 07:03 PM (J6kXj)

505 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (dZ756)

Ok. Let me hold your hand:

It's not a Socon's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Socon than "you're gonna get the other guy elected". True or false?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:04 PM (vIRPd)

506 I love that this fucking guy posts quaint remarks and demands (DEMANDS!) treatise is return.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 28, 2012 07:04 PM (J4gw3)

507 Thank you, willow.

Posted by: alexthechick at November 28, 2012 07:04 PM (Gk3SS)

508 christina really does have nice puppies, i'm jealous.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 07:04 PM (hX8cq)

509 Meremortal, the boy is safe and fine (sort of). Pissed that he never got his ballot, having trouble sleeping, loud noises bother him, other than that he's great.

Couple of his friends didn't make it home, so he knows how lucky he is.

Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:04 PM (UOM48)

510 as far as torquewrench, can't anyone in the anti-socon brigade acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, Republican economic views aren't all that popular either?

i'll freely acknowledge some positions i have are not necessarily shared by tons of people. the blame the SoCons caucus seems incapable of this though. it's never any opinion they have that might need to be changed, or presented differently.

not meant as an Akin defense, obviously.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 07:05 PM (60GaT)

511 Romney was a great candidate. Romney just didnt beat the margin of fraud.. which was huge.

I do think.. the likes of Akin and Murdock hurt Romney with females.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at November 28, 2012 07:05 PM (DGIjM)

512 The pot discussion is a total waste of time too. Everyone who wants to smoke pot has been doing so and will continue to do so whether it's legal or not.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 07:05 PM (1Y+hH)

513 Still dissecting an election when the truth is now obvious. We are a leftist/statist nation no different then most in Europe. Despite all the talk and warnings coming from the right our culture has chosen a weak economic future with growing dependency on the government. They know what lies ahead and they chose it. And with every passing year, with even more misery and pain our culture will move even further left. It might be possible for a Republican (notice I didn't say conservative) to win in the future, I doubt it but it may be possible, but our eventual collapse is now baked in. It doesn't matter who is President anymore.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 28, 2012 07:05 PM (GZitp)

514 Prescient11, then Mr. Holder has some armored humvees from the DHS that would keep you from suppressing the vote. Enjoy Gitmo.

Srsly. That's racist. How dare you dare to suppress the vote in districts that vote 100% turnout??/?

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 07:06 PM (QxSug)

515 Drew,

Will anyone hold their nose and say OK if he gives a "NEXT F*(king QUESTION" speech like the one outlined here in the comments? That's an honest question, because I live in a weird little bubble of people who would crawl across broken glass to vote for the small government candidate who actually meant it.

Frankly I would vote for the guy who gave that speech AND MEANT IT AND FOLLOWED THROUGH, even ifpersonally, he was pro-clubbing baby seals. Let the states run themselves. CA and NY can burn the f*(k down for all I care. Just don't make me burn down with them.

Posted by: the other coyote at November 28, 2012 07:06 PM (yK44T)

516 Let.It.Burn.

My small business owning husband is beginning to agree.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:06 PM (UOM48)

517 "I disagree. I think it was actually a golden opportunity to go on the offensive against Obama's radical views on abortion. Romney most definitely could have used Akin's statement to his advantage, but not as a way to go on the defensive. Rather, go on the offensive. Enlighten the public about Obama's extremely radical belief in not only partial-birth abortion, but also infanticide. Use Akin's statement to pound home the fact that the ONLY thing Obama decided to not vote "present" on as a legislator in IL was infanticide (the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). In fact, not only did he decide to vote "no" on the act, he led the charge to defeat the act.

Imagine that strategy. Going on the offensive against both the media's silence on this matter and forcing Obama to make a statement about his pro-infanticide stance. Imagine a "President Death" meme starting. A "President Baby-Killer" meme starting.

THAT would have been the way to go. Enough defending ourselves from all these stupid accusations (and yes, it is a stupid accusation that just because ONE GOP member believes something, then the entire Republican Party believes it). Start turning every stupid accusation into an attack on the radical views of the Left/Democrats which the media cover up.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (vUK/h) "

No. Are you retarded? Always surrender. That's how you win.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:07 PM (vIRPd)

518 Clyde Shelton:

Absolutely. ALWAYS BE ON THE OFFENSIVE.

Why is what Akin said controversial. Obama voted against protecting babies that were born alive?? Is that normal, to kill a baby that is crying outside of its mother's womb.

These fucking idiots are so scared of their own shadow it's ridiculous. Knowing the facts, and your core values, means nothing can destroy you or get you off your game.

You are your fucking game. Reagan was that through and through. And Americans knew it.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:07 PM (tVTLU)

519 >>>because (most) libertarians see these issues as a matter of personal choice and not the rightful domain of government.

Libertarian philosophy of law is unless a person's life, liberty, or property is harmed by the immoral actions of another, their is no criminal liability. Well like most in the cognitive dissonance camp they just ignore the life of the baby even exists. Well the baby does exist, the baby's life is brutally taken, and yes that makes it a valid question for criminal law even in libertarian philosophy.

Libertarian philosophy also should not support gay marriage. Supporting gay marriage means to extend the governments control over human relationships beyond where it already is. A true libertarian would argue the government has no role in defining and controlling relationships between people and that governments control of the institution of marriage should pass back to the people.

But no they argue to broaden government's reach into the governing of human relations.

It makes no sense, and I will not respect a libertarian who argues for either as actually being a proponent of freedom.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 07:07 PM (TRNea)

520
Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:04 PM (UOM4


Sounds normal for a returnee. I know you'll be watching for any problems.Best wishes always, for both of you and those close to both of you.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 07:07 PM (1Y+hH)

521 Yes let's nominate blacks Hispanics and women just because our Affirmative Action Presidents have been so competent so far

Posted by: TexasJew at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (lD8ju)

522 Powerball at $550 mil. Sheppy says tickets are selling at 130,000 per minute.

I promise I'll give Ace money to upgrade this place when I win.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (UOM48)

523 You noticed, though, that blogs went into a fairly coordinated "KILL NEWT" mode the minute he got momentum. That always bothered me. No trust in the primary candidates shaking out with voters. We got all the losing anyway. I think we missed some of the fight.


Posted by: sarahw at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (LYwCh)

524 505
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (dZ756)



Ok. Let me hold your hand:



It's not a Socon's duty to vote for a Republican. It's a
Republican's obligation to do a better job appealing to a Socon than
"you're gonna get the other guy elected". True or false?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

You're an ass. You could have been clear from the get go because your use of "that" didn't imply either scenario, but you know all because you're soooo cool. However, your statement above is absolutely correct. If you can't sell your brand to someone, don't blame the putative buyer.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (dZ756)

525
Sounds normal for a returnee. I know you'll be
watching for any problems.Best wishes always, for both of you and those
close to both of you.

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 07:07 PM (1Y+hH)



Thanks, but he's back at his duty station. He's fine. Just pissed over his CiC.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:09 PM (UOM48)

526 Libertarians seem to care more about legalizing drugs than any actual form of liberty. Every single one of them has been a big time statist/full on commie outside of drug legalization. Fuck them, they are assholes if willing to throw away their entire supposed ideology over being able to get wasted. What good is freedom to get high, if every other freedom is extinguished.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 07:09 PM (KCvsd)

527 "502 "because (most) libertarians see these issues as a matter of personal choice and not the rightful domain of government."

how is this functionally different from liberalism? It starts as "state choice, we can't have the federal government boss people around" but it always turns into the federal govt./courts having to "liberate" everybody, whether that's what you personally want or not.

libertarians saying "federalism! personal choice!" aren't gonna win against liberals saying Equality demands this, and a lot of libertarians'll probably just end up agreeing with the latter anyway, if they don't already.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 07:02 PM (60GaT) "

Libertarians tend to be narcissistic, nihilistic assholes who want to be politically correct.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:09 PM (vIRPd)

528 What good is freedom to get high, if every other freedom is extinguished.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 07:09 PM (KCvsd)

what he said.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 07:10 PM (hX8cq)

529
BTW, the Kos Kidz are already coming out against Cuomo for not being liberal enough.


Cuomo has one problem that Obama doesn't -- he can't print money, he can only try to sell general obligation bonds, which would probably be rated as junk bonds in a basket case state like NY that's shedding population and tax base at an alarming rate...

...or actually try and balance his budget, which is politically unacceptable.

NY is joining CA/MI in the death spiral.

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 28, 2012 07:11 PM (Anjf+)

530 Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:03 PM (tVTLU)

But Reagan was probably the least guilty of the Repub growth set...

Nixon.... EPA... and we all see where that is going...

Bush... DHS... and the now Unionized TSA gropers...

Wars on Drugs.... which led to no knock warrants, and the confiscation of personal property...

Dems expand government to give people shit... Repubs expand Government to 'protect' people from shit.... both however expand government.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 07:11 PM (lZBBB)

531 Romeo/386:

I missed that post earlier, but that is exactly correct. The one issue that united GOPvoters and independents and resulted in landslide 2010 elections was obamacare. To this day people still hate that fucking law.

and yet our candidate did his own version. For fuck's sake.

Of course, what romney failed to do is distinguish the VAST VAST differences between romneycare and obamacare, all he did was meekly say it's different at a state level versus a federal level.
unfuckingbelievable. The more and more I think about it the more I get pissed off. This guy was the only one who sounded like he could even put a couple of sentences together during the debates. We just had a shitty field of candidates. Perry was my 1st choice as well, but I don't think the country is ready to go back to the well with TX yet.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (tVTLU)

532 Thanks, but he's back at his duty station. He's fine. Just pissed over his CiC.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:09 PM (UOM4I see, thanks. I would never claim to understand a lot about what's he's been through, but I understand his frustration with what you just mentioned! ((hugs))

Posted by: Meremortal, run...it's burning! at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (1Y+hH)

533 526
Libertarians seem to care more about legalizing drugs than any actual
form of liberty. Every single one of them has been a big time
statist/full on commie outside of drug legalization. Fuck them, they are
assholes if willing to throw away their entire supposed ideology over
being able to get wasted. What good is freedom to get high, if every
other freedom is extinguished.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston

Really? Every single one of them? Well, I can tell you from personal experience (me) that that's not true. In fact, I'm willing to be put my small gov't credentials to the test against yours. Wanna play?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (dZ756)

534 @414 Mirror-

The correct number is 91.418%

But you'd know that if you weren't, well, you know...

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (X9Mnx)

535 332 --- "The Montana seat was an easy lay up for the GOP. Yet there was a Libertarian running who got 6.5% of the vote. Take that 6.5% give it to the Republican and it's an easy win. But instead the Democrat wins with 47%."

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 06:16 PM (HDgX3)

Yep.
That's what happened to Mia Love too.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at November 28, 2012 07:13 PM (C8mVl)

536 At some point, someone told me or otherwise inferred...

"Nice Guys Finish Last."

This election certainly validated that premise.

Nice guys that for whatever reason allow their opponents to character assassinate them for several months...well, shit. I'm not sure how much worse than "last" there actually is within what was, for all intents and purposes, a 2-man race.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 28, 2012 07:13 PM (wMOnp)

537 The reason I first backed Gingrich is because he would take it to the media. But after Romney won in Florida I backed him. But Gingrich had a key insight, actually several, but first is that the media IS your enemy, once and always and continuously. Never forget they are the public arm of the Dem party. The are NEVER your friend, even if they are smiling. Until we defeat or counter the MSM we will never win another national election.

Think of Candy Crawley putting her ass in the scales for Obama in the second debate. Romney NEVER recovered from this, he lost the Bengazi story and lost the 3rd debate. I think if he had been continuously aggressive like we saw in the first debate, and Christie did not suck Obama off in a hurricane we might have won.

Posted by: Jehu at November 28, 2012 07:14 PM (cSD32)

538 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (dZ756)

I'm an ass because I assumed that you aren't stupid?


Ok.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (vIRPd)

539 Think of Candy Crawley putting her ass in the scales
for Obama in the second debate. Romney NEVER recovered from this, he
lost the Bengazi story and lost the 3rd debate. I think if he had been
continuously aggressive like we saw in the first debate, and Christie
did not suck Obama off in a hurricane we might have won.

Posted by: Jehu

If we'd have had Newt, at least it would have been a fun campaign, but my god, the baggage he has.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (dZ756)

540 To all Perry supporters who are not from Texas:

Perry sucks.

People here don't like him, but no R ran against him, so...

Last time around, Perry squeaked 53% of the vote. The other statewide candidates took upwards of 65% of the vote.

Posted by: the other coyote at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (yK44T)

541 Romney was, and is, Mormon.

Posted by: Gerry at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (DlBnK)

542 Nude post up.

Posted by: Jane D'oh, Life Coach at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (UOM48)

543 Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 07:09 PM (KCvsd)

Painting with an awfully broad brush.... I guess then that all Repubs must be Anti Abortion Zealots because some of them are.....

But heck... go ahead and demonize folks who agree with you on some subjects... its such a good way to influence people...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (lZBBB)

544 The GOP elites have to stop pushing the guy that lost last time. Where did that get us with McCain and Romney? They were both RINOs and we need conservatives that actually believe it, Mitt couldn't speak it as if he meant it.

Posted by: CarolT at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (z4WKX)

545 544

Exactly why I said we need to pick a guy and start pushing him (even if we're pushing him on himself) now.

Posted by: the other coyote at November 28, 2012 07:17 PM (yK44T)

546 538
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (dZ756)



I'm an ass because I assumed that you aren't stupid?




Ok.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Yes, you made an ass out of u and me. What happened was, you knew what you were thinking and didn't consider that it could be interpreted differently. I don't begrudge you that -- happens to everyone -- but when I explained it, you doubled down on ass.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:17 PM (dZ756)

547 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (dZ756)

Go ahead.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:17 PM (vIRPd)

548 #533,

Good for you having principles, tell any narcissistic and nihilistic statist assholes around you that they aren't libertarians like they claim to be and keep fighting for small government.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 07:17 PM (KCvsd)

549 Jane D'oh:

All thoughts to your boy. Hope he finishes up and gets home safe.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:17 PM (tVTLU)

550 "534 @414 Mirror-

The correct number is 91.418%

But you'd know that if you weren't, well, you know...

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (X9Mnx) "




(Well played. )

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:18 PM (vIRPd)

551
The point is not that Romney could've been replaced by someone "better." Romney was a semi-squishy, more conservative than McCain but not by a lot kinda guy who had a lot of policy decisions over the years that rendered him unable to attack Obama's socialist agenda in many areas. Doesn't mean that Newt (my guy) would've been better, as he's had some oddball things over the years as well. The Point is that surely there HAD to have been somebody with more/better qualified beliefs and policy decisions. HAD to have been. And that someone is not Luap Nor.

Posted by: Morseus at November 28, 2012 07:18 PM (8Syx4)

552 Puppies? I just saw a whole lotta sweater mischief a couple of posts down.

Great Googley Moogley!

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at November 28, 2012 07:18 PM (lOmbq)

553 Oh no......not another tear down of the '12 presidential election.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (L7hol)

554 "The pot discussion is a total waste of time too."


Apparently not since it seems to come up in every single discussion over here. Apparently quite a few things take a back seat to the Freedom to Toke and they'll let you know with their vote.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (uD2fR)

555 "Romney’s liberal record so compromised him that he was unable to attack Obama on a whole range of issues due to fear of Obama using his own positions from just a few years earlier to make him look like a hypocrite. . . . The fact is liberal Republicans do not win presidential races." [rdbrewer]

The fuck?

No.

Obama lied his ass off at every occasion. He even started campaigning as Bill Jeff Clinton part III when he claimed he (in 1999 I guess) balanced the budget.

Romney could've gone to the right and to the left of obama.

We'd all have to conclude that Romney's strategy was wrong.

Run on the economy, only it seems that public perception was that it really wasn't all in the crapper and that it was W Bush fault.

Since no member of GOP is willing to defend W or even explain that Obama sued Citibank to make bad loans, that leaves us with a bunch of other wedge issues.

Instead of a death by a 1,000 cuts campaign, romney seemed to use only one weapon.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (QxSug)

556 544 and 545:

EXACTLY. Make it our candidate. The internet shut down the republican idiots from passing massive amnesty with Jorge GWB.

WE CAN DO IT AGAIN IF THE MOVEMENT STARTS. Only two candidates I like, in order, are:
1) Marco Rubio
2) Scott Walker

Other possibilities??? The movement needs to pick. Not the establishment.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (tVTLU)

557 "539 Think of Candy Crawley putting her ass in the scales
for Obama in the second debate. Romney NEVER recovered from this, he
lost the Bengazi story and lost the 3rd debate. I think if he had been
continuously aggressive like we saw in the first debate, and Christie
did not suck Obama off in a hurricane we might have won.

Posted by: Jehu

If we'd have had Newt, at least it would have been a fun campaign, but my god, the baggage he has.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:15 PM (dZ756) "

And this sort of bullshit is the reason I can't stand Libertarians.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (vIRPd)

558 Romney wasn't perfect. His attack surface was made far greater than it had to be. And he was wounded from a horrible process on the primary side.

What can we do to fix this?

Primaries are broken. This is obvious. The interminable debates expose far more than you should expose to your competitors, effectively weakening them against the battle ahead. The jabs that the wannabe candidates make against each other leave wounds that don't heal, and fodder for the other side.

Why, and how, exactly, is any of this a win?

It isn't.

His attack surface was bigger than it had to be, thanks in part to the "more socially conservative than thou" posturing a candidate must do to capture our nomination, and then convince the bulk of the people now frightened by this, that this was what was needed in order to win the nod. So bear with me a moment, imagine if that was not a feature of our process. Imagine if that, in fact, was something that no one had to do. Imagine if, the voices demanding this, were silenced or ignored, as the required gyrations and contortions weren't ... required ... as the candidate never had to position himself so outside the population norms, as to scare off the people.

Yeah, the free stuff crowd did win.

But we did ourselves no favors, by helping them win, by enabling the competitor to accurately paint our candidate as being far right in social issues. Which, doesn't make sense.

We were outflanked, and we gave them the flank to do this to us with. We were outgunned, and in part this is because we tricked ourselves.

We violated the core principle of any scientific endeavor. We believed our own numbers over those of our lying eyes.

We failed in many ways.

Romney wasn't a great candidate, but he would have made a good president. Obama and his senate are going to mess with us for at least 2 more years. And we have to retake this back from them.

The only nominations we should ever consider going forward are on strict fiscal conservative limited government personal responsibility and liberty. We should never, ever, again ... ever ... nominate a Mourdock, Akin, and anyone else of their ilk. They are the definition of failed candidates.

The original tea party was about limited government, fiscal responsibility. It appears that in places, its morphed into a socon proxy. These are Akin and Mourdock candidates.

That is a failed direction. I want limited government, fiscal conservatism, personal liberty and responsibility.

I do not want candidates dictating to us the correct (in their world view) construction of a marriage, or talk of rape, or a discussion of contraception. Any candidate whom opens their mouth on any of this, is, immediately, without the need for any further vetting, disqualified. They can go home, we don't need them. They can harbor those views in private. Just keep their mouth shut about them in public.

The US public neither needs, nor wants those world views. Its time the people pushing these realized that battle is lost, and moved on from pushing it.

If the candidate opines on evolution, they had damned well better be an evolutionary biologist talking about differences between punctuated equilibria and other possible mechanisms for evolution. Denying something we know as scientific fact simply to make your religious feelings better ... not good, nor wise. Marco Rubio almost ... ALMOST ... undid every good word I ever said about him recently with his press bit. I'd recommend he keep his trap shut on this, and if we are lucky, no one will probe it.

Wanna talk about young earth cosmology? Sure, go ahead. Just don't run for office on a GOP ticket.

Its crap like this that makes it much easier to attack us. Its crap like this that turns what should have been sure winners into questionable at best, and most likely losers.

Romney lost by very little difference. A big part of the very few votes difference were likely these issues that he opened himself up for attack with. Which he had no choice as he had to be more conservative than thou. And he paid the price for it.

That ends now.

Posted by: Joe in MI at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (3R8wQ)

559 533 Really? Every single one of them? Well, I can tell you from personal experience (me) that that's not true. In fact, I'm willing to be put my small gov't credentials to the test against yours. Wanna play?

I'm game as well. Destroying strawmen and ad hominem attacks is just as easy whether they come from the left or the right. We in the center get it all the time, no worries.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (wMOnp)

560 #543, I live in the northeast. Every VT, NH, MA, and ME 'libertarian' I've met is a hardcore Democrat or full on Commie except for wanting drugs and all laws against socially deviant behavior struck from the books.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at November 28, 2012 07:19 PM (KCvsd)

561 what i have an issue with on libertarian view on abortion, is choice means there is only the womens rights in the choice.,

at the expense of the innocent party. I Used to think this was alright in the first couple of months , where it lost me permanently is the' choice' folks have moved the line drawn on rare exception to a use as birth control measure instead of protection (which i believe BOTH male and females are responsible for) btw --all the way to partial birth abortion (killing a VIABLE HUMAN)
and Then making Others Pay for their 'choice'


srsly we lose all standards in this?

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 07:20 PM (hX8cq)

562 I have a feeling that the people who are in the Electability mindset are also the ones who will vote straight R no matter what. I'd at least wager that there is significant overlap.


I do think that the electability crowd and the republican always no matter what crowd are mostly the same.


I think they want to win, so they want to appeal to independent types.


Problem is, they aren't independent types, they are Red Team types, they don't like independent types, they don't understand them, they don't recognize them when they're bit in the ass, and they don't know how to appeal to them.


I actually think they're nominating and moderating in ways that independent types specifically hate because they don't know any better. Real independent types, they get called 'crazy' and told they could never win their own vote, because the GOP pollsters and managers think they know independents better than independents do.


Lots of people thought Romney could appeal to independents because he was moderate, but independents I'll wager hate the fuck out of moderates. Moderates are the 30 confused people who can't remember who's running and won't vote. Independent voters are independent because they hate all politicians. They don't want everybody to get along, they want everyone in DC to be hanged. Vapid moderate suits with empty well-polished phrases are the epitome of the politician and the governing class, the very thing independents reject when they reject both parties of politicians.


And I mean that not even as an ideological or political argument, not on policy, just as a matter of style and demeanor and tone. It's not just my preference, these are things I see with my eyes at the gas station and around the water cooler and from the janitor on his break, some left and some right and some middle, some well informed and some who belong on Jay Leno's Man On The Street.


Mitt Romney was in every way a right wing John Kerry. It won't work for the left and it won't work for the right because it won't work. Everyone hates that shit. No one likes that shit. Everyone just thinks everyone else likes that shit. Massachusetts Moderates are like a fucking fruit cake that keeps getting re-gifted.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 07:21 PM (YUttk)

563 anyway WHO pushed abortion federally on everyone else?

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 07:22 PM (hX8cq)

564 There's a term for libertarians voting their conscience - "Pyrrhic victory".

If your "voting your conscience" results in eating a tasty shit sandwich, and you know this going in up front, then that shit sandwich is really what you wanted all along.

This is politics, not some grad level philosophy/ethics class. Its nasty, crude and you never get 100% of what you want, EVER...

...but if you're gonna have a shit sandwich, at least get a fucking slice of bacon on the damned thing!

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 28, 2012 07:22 PM (Anjf+)

565 Biden voted to repeal Roe v. Wade.

When did that ever, and I mean ever, get raised with the vagina media?

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:22 PM (tVTLU)

566 We lost when Ryan decided not to run despite being begged by his former mentors to do so.

This was Ryan's moment, Romney knew that, which is why he picked him. Unfortunately Ryan punted.

Posted by: Carl at November 28, 2012 07:22 PM (OeUnr)

567 "546 538
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:08 PM (dZ756)



I'm an ass because I assumed that you aren't stupid?




Ok.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

Yes, you made an ass out of u and me. What happened was, you knew what you were thinking and didn't consider that it could be interpreted differently. I don't begrudge you that -- happens to everyone -- but when I explained it, you doubled down on ass.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:17 PM (dZ756) "


For fuck's sake.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:23 PM (vIRPd)

568 Romeo13 and Prescient11
Damn Right!

Posted by: Iggy at November 28, 2012 07:23 PM (5Cwv4)

569 We lost because we're the party of Paul Ryans and not Joe Bidens.

Seriously, if you want to boil down why we lost it was demonstrated in the VP debate. Not directly of course, but it's the symptom of what we are. Joe Biden came out and hammered home some of the largest bullshit that's ever been laid out before on national television like a complete jackass and Paul Ryan politely waited his turn and then coherantly and intelligently disputed everything Biden said and laid out a sensible alternative.

And there's the problem.

While we looked at this with knowledge, intelligence and general decency, all everyone else saw was Joe Biden calling Ryan/Romeny a liar while being a jackass himself.

It doesn't matter that we're right, it doesn't matter that we're smarter, it doesn't matter that they're wrong. WE LOSE.

And the solution is four simple words that need to be uttered to every single liberal politician out there over and over again: You're Full of Shit. Repeat it. Over and over again, don't argue, don't justify, don't rationalize. Just repeat, You're Full of SHIT. You remember how Regan's most famous line was "They're you go again"? Translation: "You're full of shit". You know how Romney ended up beating the crap out of Obama in the first debate: "You're full of shit". Seriously, that's it. When he got into the 2nd and 3rd debate he was trying to come off as nice and trying to trap Obama with questions, but the one thing that he didn't do was just say over and over again how full of shit Obama was.

Romney was a good candidate because he had the stones to pull that out every once and awhile. The next candidate needs to just proclaim loud and clear over and over that these people are idiots and shouldn't be left near open flames and sharp objects. Period.

Posted by: RizzyG at November 28, 2012 07:26 PM (FzyEN)

570
I'll support abortion....100%....as soon as the powers that be recognize a man's right to choose to support/recognize his own progeny...or not. But I'm of the opinion that this freedom of choice thing requires a matched pair of X chromosomes before it can be called on to rid one's self of unwanted sprogs.


Posted by: Sticky Wicket at November 28, 2012 07:27 PM (L7hol)

571 547
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (dZ756)



Go ahead.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney
///
I support term limits for Congress (exactly what I haven't resolved, but I'm thinking 2 terms Senate and 6 House). I've voted against every CA bond issue I can. I absolutely support the 2nd amendment and if someone breaks into your house, you are not required to run before you shoot. I voted against the CA GMO labeling ballot initiative because I saw it for what it is -- another $ grab by lawyers (I should know, I am one). I would immediately eliminate Depts of: Homeland (what kind of a fucking Orwellian/Soviet term is that) Security, Education, Energy, Vet Affairs (what the fuck is the Defense Dept for?), and probably a 1/2 dozen to a dozen more though I can't keep track of the proliferation, I'd insist on an actual Congressional declaration of WAR before we engage in major hostilities. Fuck Obamacare. No campaign finance limits (but full source disclosure). No TSA. Never voted against a tax cut/never voted for a tax increase. Eliminate our military presence in Europe. Kick the UN out of the USA (and frankly, kick the USA out of the UN). Dissolve NATO (that was merely an excuse for us to *have* to get involved in another European land war) which has run its course. Eliminate executive orders that conflict with real laws and greatly restrict administrative rulemaking. Suggest a few things and I'll comment but this is a good start.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:28 PM (dZ756)

572 518 Absolutely. ALWAYS BE ON THE OFFENSIVE.

Why is what Akin said controversial. Obama voted against protecting babies that were born alive?? Is that normal, to kill a baby that is crying outside of its mother's womb.

These fucking idiots are so scared of their own shadow it's ridiculous. Knowing the facts, and your core values, means nothing can destroy you or get you off your game.

You are your fucking game. Reagan was that through and through. And Americans knew it.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 28, 2012 07:07 PM

Exactly. Hell, we could have even used the opportunity to call out the media's bullshit.

"I'm sorry, [Ms. Media Person], are you actually making the case that the view of one Republican candidate is a reflection on the entire Republican Party? Why, that would be like me saying that because Dan Rather is a liar who used his position in the media to lie to the American people to hurt a sitting President for partisan reasons, then that means that all of you journalists in the media are liars who use your positions in the media to lie to the American public for partisan reasons. Right, [Ms. Media Person]? Wouldn't that be correct? Because one of you lied, then all of you are liars? And that's not true is it? You're not all liars, because of Dan Rather, correct? No, of course you're not. That's a ridiculous conclusion to make. Same thing applies here."

Or something along those lines. And now, not only has the Republican candidate turned on the offensive and brought up Obama's radical pro-infanticide position, the candidate has also brought up the media's history of lying. So now the story is not Akin, but is (1) Obama favors infanticide and (2) remember the media is made up of a bunch of liars.

The key thing here is stop addressing bullshit questions from the media. There is no reason to even address Akin's statement. His beliefs are his own. If a candidate came out and said he believed in aliens from outer space, would every Republican have to go out there and "distance themselves from the view"? Of course not. Same here.

Go.on.the.offensive.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 28, 2012 07:28 PM (vUK/h)

573 I love how the spending "cuts" proposed by Republicans is basically means testing for Medicare and SS. So not only do evil rich (white) people get to pay more taxes, they also get no Medicare and no SS.

And this is the supposed conservative party? We are so fucked.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 07:29 PM (HDgX3)

574 569 You're Full of Shit. Repeat it. Over and over again, don't argue, don't justify, don't rationalize. Just repeat, You're Full of SHIT

If "nice guys" did shit like that, we'd all be sitting here talking about what an incredible unmitigated devastating success ORCA was.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 28, 2012 07:29 PM (wMOnp)

575 that's the thing. alternate election 2012 reality, jackass Rick Perry jackasses his way to victory by calling obama soft on everything, liberal spend next 20 years butthurt about Perry making the election about Obamaphonelady and Benghazi.

Perry. sigh.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is JFK now? at November 28, 2012 07:30 PM (QxSug)

576 570

I'll support abortion....100%....as soon as the powers that be
recognize a man's right to choose to support/recognize his own
progeny...or not. But I'm of the opinion that this freedom of choice
thing requires a matched pair of X chromosomes before it can be called
on to rid one's self of unwanted sprogs.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket

This. Technology will eventually eliminate the problem when embryos can be incubated.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:30 PM (dZ756)

577 SFGoth If we'd have had Newt, at least it would have been a fun campaign, but my god, the baggage he has.

Yes he did have baggage, problem is with the MSM any GOP candidate will have baggage, they will make sure of it, and at the same time they will be the shoe-shine boys, all shucking and jiving for the Dem candidate.

We must have a strong candidate with great speaking skills. Best I have seen was Allen West, the Dems put millions into defeating him, cannot allow a black conservative to live.

I know personally that a no-nonsense principle-based speaker, that actually fights the media and status quo, can win.

Years ago I spoke at a large church, in my typical take-no-prisoners mode. Afterwards I got feedback that the typical sort of liberal squishy teens attending this church wanted to hear me speak more often. To them it came across as "real," whereas their usual fare was warm oatmeal. That is what the GOP puts up against the shit sandwiches from the Dems, warm oatmeal, but the young people will still eat the shit sandwich because at least it is served hot!

Posted by: Jehu at November 28, 2012 07:31 PM (cSD32)

578
The real problem here was the electorate. They weren't going to listen to a conservative message because you can't hear when you have your head stuck up your ass.
Whatever flaws Romney had (and he had fewer than Obama) it shouldn't have been a close election. A country that prefers an effete, incompetent, thin-skinned liar like Obama over a great man like Romney is hopelessly and irretrievably fukked.
Math 2016

Posted by: SamInVA at November 28, 2012 07:31 PM (YCvRs)

579 See, we fought the last war. We got called stupid for ... let's see ... 28 years so we brought in the big brains, and the left goes all Biden on us.

We needed to fight biden with biden (i.e., perry)

Posted by: so joeindc44 is full of all sorts of hindsight now, like JFK? at November 28, 2012 07:31 PM (QxSug)

580 "571 547
Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:12 PM (dZ756)



Go ahead.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney
///
I support term limits for Congress (exactly what I haven't resolved, but I'm thinking 2 terms Senate and 6 House). I've voted against every CA bond issue I can. I absolutely support the 2nd amendment and if someone breaks into your house, you are not required to run before you shoot. I voted against the CA GMO labeling ballot initiative because I saw it for what it is -- another $ grab by lawyers (I should know, I am one). I would immediately eliminate Depts of: Homeland (what kind of a fucking Orwellian/Soviet term is that) Security, Education, Energy, Vet Affairs (what the fuck is the Defense Dept for?), and probably a 1/2 dozen to a dozen more though I can't keep track of the proliferation, I'd insist on an actual Congressional declaration of WAR before we engage in major hostilities. Fuck Obamacare. No campaign finance limits (but full source disclosure). No TSA. Never voted against a tax cut/never voted for a tax increase. Eliminate our military presence in Europe. Kick the UN out of the USA (and frankly, kick the USA out of the UN). Dissolve NATO (that was merely an excuse for us to *have* to get involved in another European land war) which has run its course. Eliminate executive orders that conflict with real laws and greatly restrict administrative rulemaking. Suggest a few things and I'll comment but this is a good start.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:28 PM (dZ756) "

Most of that works for me.



(I'll have to think about NATO.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:32 PM (vIRPd)

581 That's the problem with the demand to "tell me who
else we should have gone with", it's unknowable counter-factuals. All we
know for sure is Romney sucked.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 28, 2012 06:57 PM (x8U/s)
We know for sure that a) the polls consistently showed Romney doing best vs. Obama and b) Romney outperformed pretty much every GOP Senate candidate. So you're essentially arguing that Noot would have been a better candidate than Ted Cruz and all the other conservatives who got fewer votes than Romney did in their states.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 28, 2012 07:33 PM (E8Ag4)

582 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:28 PM (dZ756) "



Most of that works for me.




(I'll have to think about NATO.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

I may be an ass, just not the ass you consider me to be. And fuck NATO. Let the effete Europeans pay for their own defense.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:33 PM (dZ756)

583 Look, if the electorates changed.

Fine.

There are voters out there that want free shit.

Give it to them. We can then talk about values and whatnot honestly.

Right now, Obama's doing more than giving poor black chicks free phones and SSI disability, setting up hispanic shanty towns, or giving haughty white fucks their own ego-fufilling bullshit union jobs, he's going full soviet with everything else.

Let's focus on freedom if we can't win the battle of free shit.

So.

who would play that game?

Gingrich, maybe.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is full of all sorts of hindsight now, like JFK? at November 28, 2012 07:33 PM (QxSug)

584 We have been so focused on our 2016 guy, who in the fuck is on deck for the Dems??? thoughts??

_______________

Cory Booker - mayor of Newark.
He will run for and win the NJ governorship next year.
Then in 2016 he will be Obama's heir apparent. First black president passing the torch to second black president.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 07:34 PM (HDgX3)

585 It wasn't you - it was me.

Posted by: George Costanza at November 28, 2012 07:34 PM (zpqa2)

586 libertarians saying "federalism! personal choice!" aren't gonna win against liberals saying Equality demands this, and a lot of libertarians'll probably just end up agreeing with the latter anyway, if they don't already
---
Hmmm, too bad. Then let it burn.

Posted by: Whatev at November 28, 2012 07:35 PM (2t6Gz)

587 actually, mother fucker!

Perry figured out the give people free shit game too while being a conservative badass.

I don't care about economics, I wants my freedoms. The donks are selling out the country to go full soviet.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is full of all sorts of hindsight now, like JFK? at November 28, 2012 07:35 PM (QxSug)

588 Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 06:56 PM (jdOk/) " Answer the questions. Libertarians seem to have a lot of teh ADD.
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:00 PM (vIRPd)

I did, not my problem you don't like the answer.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 07:36 PM (m6OUa)

589 Initially Paul Ryan seemed like a great pick. It seemed to open the door for Romney to campaign on economic issues. And I personally liked Paul Ryan. But after listening to him drone on in a few speeches, jeez could he put you to sleep. You will not win anyone with the guy with a green eye-shade. Romney would have done better with Rubio. He actually is an inspiring speaker and would definitely split off some Hispanic votes.

Also each time I listened to Ryan he had the same stump speech, mix it up a little, get out some graphs, make the idiots understand in a one look graph, nobody is going to listen to a droning fiscal policy speech. We are the STUPID party.

Posted by: Jehu at November 28, 2012 07:36 PM (cSD32)

590 "Typical BS example blaming the DC 'Establishment' for something they had no power over. The FLORIDA state party controlled redistricting in Florida, not the Establishment."

I'll give you this, Gabe, you're not easily embarrassed.

Posted by: OCBill at November 28, 2012 07:38 PM (rFipM)

591 This. Technology will eventually eliminate the problem when embryos can be incubated.


Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:30 PM (dZ756)

the real revolution on this is about 3 years out.... Israelis have a MALE Birth Control Pill in Human Trials. It will give US the choice of having Progeny, without being stuck with abstinance.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 07:38 PM (lZBBB)

592 I'm talking about Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz.
Look, aside from Akin's gaffe - and it was hideous - he would have been
won the damned seat. Mourdock too. The fact is that all the moderate
candidates got their asses beaten too and the establishment never says
that they were flawed.



Just my opinion.


Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 28, 2012 05:23 PM

************************************************

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but they should be based on facts or they aren't worth much. Romney got 100,000 *more* votes than Cruz did in TEXAS, and Bachmann barely held on to her seat so pointing to them as the kind of people whom we should be nominating for the national ticket is not based in reality. Romney wasn't the problem as much as the GOP brand *is* the problem.

The fact is the GOP had a nominee who -- while not perfect - had the exact right skill set and resume to help right this country's economic ship, didn't have a hint of scandal in his personal life and conducted himself in a serious, presidential manner but 51% of the electorate that showed up to vote were spoiled children who need the government to tell them what to do, so he lost. Couple that with the fact that ~40% of those registered to vote can't even be bothered to (whether from apathy or stupidity or general but-hurt that their specific candidate with whom they agree 100% wasn't the nominee) and the GOP could nominate George Washington and they're still going to lose.

Posted by: angienc at November 28, 2012 07:39 PM (w3JGl)

593
the real revolution on this is about 3 years
out.... Israelis have a MALE Birth Control Pill in Human Trials. It will
give US the choice of having Progeny, without being stuck with
abstinance.

Posted by: Romeo13

LOL, we'll (I'm Jewish) be blamed for that too.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:40 PM (dZ756)

594 "582 Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:28 PM (dZ756) "



Most of that works for me.




(I'll have to think about NATO.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

I may be an ass, just not the ass you consider me to be. And fuck NATO. Let the effete Europeans pay for their own defense.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:33 PM (dZ756) "

Libertarians and Conservatives should try to find common ground more often. Always getting into bullshit about Gay marriage and abortion, which frankly most Libertarians only believe in because they are afraid of getting a beating from Leftists is annoying.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:40 PM (vIRPd)

595 76 Here's the only important take-away from that article:

"As someone who has networked with conservative activists for 35 years, I know for a fact that large segments of the tea party and Ron Paul movements did NOT vote for Romney and I also know that many evangelicals refused to support Romney as well. They knew that Romney was, deep down, a big government, socially liberal Republican and believed that electing Romney would set conservatives back decades. They believed that he would – under the mantle of “conservatism” – carry out a big government agenda instead of taking bold action to tame the deficit or get our economy growing again."

So apparently large segments of the tea party, Ron Paul movements and evangelicals refused to come out and believed that Obama was preferable to Romney. Thanks guys.

Posted by: zombywooofff at November 28, 2012 05:32 PM

I look at that statement a different way. I interpret that to mean they were taking the 'long view'. They believed that the economy is terrible and will only get worse and worse with more big government/liberal policies. So instead of having Romney/Ryan in office when everything goes to hell, and conservatism dying, because the Democrats and media all blame conservatism and capitalism for the nation's woes, they decided to allow Obama and the Democrats to maintain power, so the blame would rightly be on them and liberalism/socialist policies.

The problem with that strategy is there is MUCH more at stake than just the economy. There is foreign policy (who we have at SecofState, who we have at SECDEF, etc), there are SCOTUS nominees, there are Administration positions, head of EPA, etc etc etc.

And then there is the gamble that the American public will actually blame Obama/Democrats/socialism/liberalism for the country's woes.

I don't agree with the strategy, but I do understand it. It's big gamble though.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 28, 2012 07:41 PM (vUK/h)

596 Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 07:36 PM (m6OUa)

There were 2 questions. I saw 0 answers.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:42 PM (vIRPd)

597
Libertarians and Conservatives should try to
find common ground more often. Always getting into bullshit about Gay
marriage and abortion, which frankly most Libertarians only believe in
because they are afraid of getting a beating from Leftists is annoying.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

No, we're afraid of child support payments and unwanted kids who turn out to be vandals, murderers, rapists....

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:42 PM (dZ756)

598 <<I just have so little patience for or interest in this argument.>>

And then you ramble on after that. Don't like the argument? Fine, take a look at the record of non-Conservative Republicans winning the presidency in the last four election cycle...

...that should comfort you,.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 28, 2012 07:42 PM (dxSN9)

599 You folks haven't figured out that Michelle Obama is running in 2016 yet?

"...our ground game isn't transferable to other Democrats..."

Didn't someone say something sorta like that recently?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 28, 2012 07:42 PM (wMOnp)

600 "591 This. Technology will eventually eliminate the problem when embryos can be incubated.


Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:30 PM (dZ756)

the real revolution on this is about 3 years out.... Israelis have a MALE Birth Control Pill in Human Trials. It will give US the choice of having Progeny, without being stuck with abstinance.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 07:38 PM (lZBBB) "

Oh, for fuck's sake. If you can't figure out how to use a condom, just cut your balls off.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:44 PM (vIRPd)

601 589
Initially Paul Ryan seemed like a great pick. It seemed to open the
door for Romney to campaign on economic issues. And I personally liked
Paul Ryan. But after listening to him drone on in a few speeches, jeez
could he put you to sleep. You will not win anyone with the guy with a
green eye-shade. Romney would have done better with Rubio. He
actually is an inspiring speaker and would definitely split off some
Hispanic votes.
______________

I used to think the same. But Rubio campaigned up and down Florida for Romney and it didn't do a bit of good. Hell, Obama won Hispanics more in FL in 2012 than in 2008. Ted Cruz lost the Hispanic vote in Texas too.

Blacks and Hispanics won't vote for a Republican. Period. I don't know how we fix that, but running a black guy or a Hispanic guy alone won't do it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 07:45 PM (HDgX3)

602 Mitt Romney was in every way a right wing John Kerry. It won't work for the left and it won't work for the right because it won't work. Everyone hates that shit. No one likes that shit. Everyone just thinks everyone else likes that shit. Massachusetts Moderates are like a fucking fruit cake that keeps getting re-gifted.
Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 07:21 PM (YUttk)

You're right, no more MA candidates, I live here. I know what they're like!

Posted by: CarolT at November 28, 2012 07:47 PM (z4WKX)

603 look at it this way, and I have not considered this path yet, that if the "real right" and the libertarians stayed home because better Obama than Romney, let it burn, I'm going Galt, I have guns and God to guide me....then:

Maybe Romney's points against Obama were also baked in the cake (along with our alleged racism) and what RR did was the baseline (or actually the max).

Then, if we had nominated a God's own libertarian, who ever that would be (Bachman, I think), then ... we'd have gotten another couple million votes plus the libertarians who voted for monkey ass...and won despite being creamed by the liberal fucking media for 3 months after nomination.

crazy enough to work.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is full of all sorts of hindsight now, like JFK? at November 28, 2012 07:47 PM (QxSug)

604 I predict eric holder in 2016. Black. has to be black. and he's about as evil a fucker as can be imagined.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is full of all sorts of hindsight now, like JFK? at November 28, 2012 07:47 PM (QxSug)

605 "597
Libertarians and Conservatives should try to
find common ground more often. Always getting into bullshit about Gay
marriage and abortion, which frankly most Libertarians only believe in
because they are afraid of getting a beating from Leftists is annoying.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney

No, we're afraid of child support payments and unwanted kids who turn out to be vandals, murderers, rapists....

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 07:42 PM (dZ756) "

Really? Well, fear (and eugenics, I guess) are hardly the noblest of motives...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:48 PM (vIRPd)

606 Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 28, 2012 07:41 PM (vUK/h)

Hmm-- saying they're taking the "long-view" is more generous than they deserve.

I prefer to say they're a bunch of whiny prima donnas waiting on their ideal 100% "pure" candidate before they can get off their butts and show up at the polls and doing everything they can in the meantime to cause division within the ranks.

They can rationalize all they want but to paraphrase Andrew Breitbart, the choice this year was America or Occupy and they weren't in the bunker with us-- they were on the other side.


Posted by: angienc at November 28, 2012 07:50 PM (w3JGl)

607 "No, we're afraid of child support payments and unwanted kids who turn out to be vandals, murderers, rapists...."

Utilitarian Conservatism, wave of the future!

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 07:50 PM (60GaT)

608 "601 589
Initially Paul Ryan seemed like a great pick. It seemed to open the
door for Romney to campaign on economic issues. And I personally liked
Paul Ryan. But after listening to him drone on in a few speeches, jeez
could he put you to sleep. You will not win anyone with the guy with a
green eye-shade. Romney would have done better with Rubio. He
actually is an inspiring speaker and would definitely split off some
Hispanic votes.
______________

I used to think the same. But Rubio campaigned up and down Florida for Romney and it didn't do a bit of good. Hell, Obama won Hispanics more in FL in 2012 than in 2008. Ted Cruz lost the Hispanic vote in Texas too.

Blacks and Hispanics won't vote for a Republican. Period. I don't know how we fix that, but running a black guy or a Hispanic guy alone won't do it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 28, 2012 07:45 PM (HDgX3) "

Maybe they just have trouble voting for an R who intentionally said "we don't want to become like Spain" when "like Greece" would have made a lot more sense...


(Honestly, how fucking stupid do you expect Hispanics to be?)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:51 PM (vIRPd)

609 'course there are other ways to reduce out-of-wedlock births besides abortion. However they're icky, likely supported by the Xtian right and tend to ruin everyone's good time.

Posted by: JDP at November 28, 2012 07:53 PM (60GaT)

610 I find that I as a Constitutional conservative was the true RINO and those I called RINO are really the Republican party.

The jig is up folks. The looters have won the day. What will it take to win it back, short of a revolution or secession? Without a God, family, good instruction, and good information there is nothing to be done.

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 28, 2012 07:57 PM (T/L2Z)

611 I look at that statement a different way. I interpret that to mean they were taking the 'long view'.

The logical conclusion, at this unique point in the nation's history of that "long view", implies BURN IT DOWN.

Obviously, they believe they'll be getting a better deal after the collapse of the USA in whatever entities emerge from the ashes 20 years from now.

That's quite a gamble to be risking everything on a roll of the dice, but that's where we are today. Now we have no choice but to gamble on burning it down.

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 28, 2012 07:58 PM (Anjf+)

612 What the social cons must do is remain silent on those issues until after the election. That is what the Dems do.

The MFM will never allow it. It will always be prime in every interview and debate.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Is Shrugging at November 28, 2012 05:39 PM

Well then, there's a way around that. When asked "What is your stance on women's choice issues?", a response could be "well, Candy, I do know that I do not hold as radical a position as the current President. I understand that he is not only in favor of legislating the legality of partial-birth abortion, but he also has lead the way in making sure that infanticide is legal! So while I am [pro-choice/pro-life], I most definitely am not radically in favor of killing babies as is the President."

And voila, the focus is now on President Baby-Killer.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 28, 2012 08:03 PM (vUK/h)

613 abortion, gay marriage, drugs - when the government has the power and authority to micro-manage those decisions for the individual citizen, there is no way that government can belimited.many conservatives (Republicans really) just can not accept that, refuse to connect the dots so that the truth of it becomes apparent to them.they are every bit the Statist a Progressive is.even now, i hate having to defend that position, it's not natural to me and it's going to take a lot of getting used to.
but my first love is freedom and freedom thrives when the government is bound, when the government is bound the citizen is free... unfortunately they are free to make some really bad and dangerous decisions but that's how freedom works, get used to it or get used to living as a slave.do you want the government to be your parent or your servant?you have to pick one or the other, can't have both, it just doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 08:04 PM (m6OUa)

614 Romney was conservative enough, even if the Establishment (redhead Georgina) wanted him. I have only two faults with Mitt: he should've safegaurded ORCA against hackers (Anonymous has admitted to hacking the program and I believe they did) and he should've fought the obvious and rampant fraud. As to the latter, though, it's really the fault of the GOP who, in 1981, agreed to never fight fraud.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 28, 2012 08:08 PM (KL49F)

615 @612 exactly. may as well take a stand because they're going to stamp us no matter what.

Posted by: so joeindc44 is full of all sorts of hindsight now, like JFK? at November 28, 2012 08:08 PM (QxSug)

616 I feel exactly as Ace does. Everyone else sucked, I affirmatively liked Romney; he was kind of an ink blot of a conservative for us urban/blue state conservatives.

I got scared when I started observing his fundraising apparatus up close. It was run by corporate-types. That might have worked for fundraising, but not for vote getting.

Romney is now in his mid-60's--he looks much better. Maybe this gave me the impression he was more flexible, more capable to adapt to 2012 than he actually was?

WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT REALLY WAS MISSING. If he won by 400K votes (or less) the same questions would need to be asked, but no one would really be asking them.

I still feel sick.

Posted by: @ParisParamus at November 28, 2012 08:18 PM (Lc2SC)

617 Of course, Romney was the nominee. McCain, Huckabee, Palin and Giuliani weren't running, so he was next in line.

You forgot Huntsman. He would have hurt Romney's chances by virtue of his similarity, which is why the establishment enlisted the base to destroy him. Sure, he was an asshole and had no chance, but until Perry, no one challenged Romney, and that left him soft for the general.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 28, 2012 08:30 PM (i0vBR)

618 "No, we're afraid of child support payments and unwanted kids who turn out to be vandals, murderers, rapists...."

This passes for libertarian principle?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 28, 2012 08:32 PM (NmR1a)

619 Fred Thompson.


It was always Fred. It will always be Fred...


Fred...

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at November 28, 2012 08:34 PM (7x9pP)

620 618
"No, we're afraid of child support payments and unwanted kids who turn out to be vandals, murderers, rapists...."

This passes for libertarian principle?


Posted by: ConservativeMonster

There's principle and there's reality.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 08:37 PM (dZ756)

621 I want tacos. We have no tacos. I want steak. We have no steak. I want pizza. We have no pizza. What have you got? Brussel Sprouts. Well, give me those. Bites. Yech. Hey, don't bitch. You chose it.
The Primary in restaurantese.

Posted by: Mike Mahoney at November 28, 2012 08:41 PM (2ImfW)

622 There is something fundamentally wrong with the GOP.

Claiming that the best players decided to skip the game is no excuse.

In fact it is another sign of decay and rot in the GOP.

The GOP is a hopeless pile of junk.

Posted by: eman at November 28, 2012 08:48 PM (bWwMZ)

623 I can't find the article to link to, but I'd recommend that you read any of the articles on why Asian-Americans voted Democratic. Take a look at the comments. They basically will all say "The Republicans are a bunch of racist, Bible-thumpers that hate women and gays." Over and over again.

We have a society that is trending strongly anti-Christian. Just take a look at churches in your town. The church used to be one of the biggest structures in town. Now they have tiny spots in strip malls. The Republican party was the anti-slavery party but somehow history has been rewritten to make the Dems out to be heroes. Opposing abortion on demand means that you are telling women what to do. Same with opposing gay marriage.

I love Bill Whittle too, but he's doing the more important work right now. Even when we don't run on social issues, the Dems make that our platform. We didn't even manage to make an issue of the Dems taking God out of their platform. That's because most Democratic supporters are not religious these days.

The two big failures of the Romney campaign were failing to make overtures to the TeaParty/RonPaul supporters and failing to hit Obama harder during the debates. And the debate problem could have been avoided if we stop accepting these corrupt lefty moderators.

Posted by: notsothoreau at November 28, 2012 08:54 PM (5HBd1)

624 Romney was terrible, but you go to the dance with the one ya brought. Next time though, lets not bring the author or Obamacare. Or someone that thinks an 'Assault weapons ban" is a great idea, huh, retards?

Posted by: GMan at November 28, 2012 08:54 PM (UkbKS)

625 Herman Cain might have won if he hadn't used the same Atlanta prostitute for decades. Mitt's holier than thou campaign didn't have a problem going after Cain. Mitt lost because he is a lousy politician who pretends to not be a big government man (big dig, Romney care, small government?). All candidates spoke badly of other Republicans. RWR said not to do that.

Posted by: Huggy at November 28, 2012 08:55 PM (vQMn3)

626 Apparently quite a few things take a back seat to the Freedom to Toke and they'll let you know with their vote.


That's another thing. Republicans are seriously fucking detached from libertarian concerns and broadcast it every time they bring it up.


Har har har, freedom to toke, they all just want to get high.


People are fucking dying. An army vet got shot and killed by police who kicked in the wrong door. Hundreds of children a year get to watch Law Enforcement shoot their pet and ransack their home for no reason they can understand.


The war has become a real war, the cops have tanks, the gangs are shooting on the street and the cartels across the border, little children die in school.


And the war on drugs is and has historically never been anything other than a massive civil-liberty crushing expansion of government power. Politicians grind real people to dust just so they can look 'tough on crime' while doing nothing but distracting police from their job catching real criminals.


Oh but hey, tax rates and loopholes. That's much more important? Heh. Have fun with that assholes.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 08:56 PM (YUttk)

627 Oh, for fuck's sake. If you can't figure out how to use a condom, just cut your balls off.


Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 28, 2012 07:44 PM (vIRPd)


Wow.... really? I think you need some therapy....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 08:57 PM (lZBBB)

628 How dare you ask the obvious questions of "who" and "why"!

Blast you! The blame game can't get a good head of steam going if you do that!

(sarc off)

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 28, 2012 08:58 PM (gmoEG)

629 There's principle and there's reality.

Says the libertarian. Somehow, "unwanted" means that we can kill off a proportion of the population and still satisfy "libertarian" principles.


Why stop right before the fetus pops out? There's a whole slew of undesirable infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, obamaphone-rs, retarded college students ...

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 28, 2012 09:01 PM (xHaTb)

630 There's principle and there's reality.


Posted by: SFGoth at November 28, 2012 08:37 PM (dZ756)


Hmmm... Howdoes taking precautions so your actions (which you take responsibility for) do not have an unwanted consequence... make it an un Libertarian thing?

IMO Libertarian is about Freedom, with Personal Responsibility (note, personal).

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 09:01 PM (lZBBB)

631 This passes for libertarian principle?


Ron Paul is pro life. Many libertarians are pro life.

Posted by: entropy at November 28, 2012 09:02 PM (YUttk)

632 Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 28, 2012 09:01 PM (xHaTb)

Uh..... how does a MALE birth control pill.... which is what started this discusion, suddenly turn into a Pro Late Term Abortion stance?

Especialy when the pill in question messes with the sperm, so no impregnation, thus no person created?

I am personaly anti Abortion as a Libertarian, because thats a PERSON in there... but very Pro Birth Control....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 09:04 PM (lZBBB)

633 The article talks up about how wrong it was to nominate Romney without
ever -- and this is the part of these arguments I find so childish --
without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better.


Yeah, that's sort-of the thing, isn't it. I was on the Newt bandwagon early but thought Romney would have run better. He didn't.

That said, I'm now starting to think we could have run the actual Jesus against the chocolate lord and saviour and, though a combination of media malfesance and GOP down-ticket numbskullery (AHEMakinAHEM), still lost - only more narrowly.

Posted by: DocJ at November 28, 2012 09:04 PM (V20sy)

634 The GOP is the team that is just happy that it got a chance to play.

Posted by: eman at November 28, 2012 09:04 PM (bWwMZ)

635 621 I want tacos. We have no tacos. I want steak. We have no steak. I want pizza. We have no pizza. What have you got? Brussel Sprouts. Well, give me those. Bites. Yech. Hey, don't bitch. You chose it. The Primary in restaurantese.
Posted by: Mike Mahoney at November 28, 2012 08:41 PM (2ImfW) Sir, you must name a specific kind of taco orsteak so thatI may use that choice to ridicule and mock you.
because even though I f-ed up bad, It's still my job to ignore that and belittle anyone that doesn't agree with me and my droogies.

Posted by: Shoey at November 28, 2012 09:05 PM (m6OUa)

636 we shoul change the meme,
to we are

pro self responsibilty/determination


wear a condom take your pills.

Posted by: willow at November 28, 2012 09:07 PM (hX8cq)

637 When you promote a single Presidential candidate -in the primary or general -who doesn't either lose spectacularly or utterly discredit Republicans while governing as a progressive (that's Bush II), maybe we should start even listening to your advice on what's best politically or philosophically.

Posted by: MlR at November 28, 2012 09:07 PM (vR2l5)

638
Ron Paul is pro life. Many libertarians are pro life.


I was responding to the pro-eugenics "libertarian".

If you're pro-life, congratulations, you satisfied your libertarian principles on this one issue.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 28, 2012 09:09 PM (xHaTb)

639 "The article talks up about how wrong it was to nominate Romney without
ever -- and this is the part of these arguments I find so childish --
without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better."

Why didn't the GOP have a better selection offered in primaries?

If that was the best it could offer, it is fucked.

If that wasn't the best it could offer, why the fuck were the better choices not available?

Both cases say the same thing: the GOP is broken beyond repair.

Posted by: eman at November 28, 2012 09:10 PM (bWwMZ)

640 In other words, whenyou've only backed one winner in two decades, and he went on to help discredit the party in all the wrong ways, maybe you should shut up and listen a little more to the cro-magnums.

Posted by: MlR at November 28, 2012 09:12 PM (vR2l5)

641 Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 28, 2012 09:09 PM (xHaTb)

Hmmmm..... so the personal choice of birth control becomes Eugenics?

Jump the shark much lately?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 28, 2012 09:13 PM (lZBBB)

642 Romney wasn't conservative enough

Our principles rule out pretty much everyone including Jesus as he associated with the taxman

We demand a candidate be given to us on a plate without us working to make it happen.

What do you mean that's a Democrat way of thinking? Shut up you RINO

Posted by: FreeRepublic at November 28, 2012 09:22 PM (CG4gA)

643 Hmmmm..... so the personal choice of birth control becomes Eugenics?



No, I was replying to a self-proclaimed libertarian who justified abortion on the grounds of "unwanted children".

Which incidentally, is a justification to get rid of unwanted children when they're children, as opposed to just when they're "lumps of flesh".

You don't hold that position - but are you defending SFGoth's position as justified or desirable?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 28, 2012 09:29 PM (xHaTb)

644 BTW - for all who want to bring up Reagan - he could communicate far better than his actual opponents, Carter and Mondale. And despite all of the attempts at demonization, was it ever something that anyone truly considered, that Reagan was a demon?

Being likable is a very important thing in US politics, and has been for a long time.* Romney didn't have that, not in a casual sense, though over time he becomes very likable. And in a presidential campaign, you got to have that right from the start. Look at GWB compared to Gore and Kerry and decide which of those three is the most likable.

*Old Bill Mauldin cartoon from the 1950's. Ike is in jousting armor on an elephant. Rayburn LBJ, and a couple of other Dems are on a donkey also in jousting armor and Rayburn is saying "Be careful - he has us outnumbered." Mauldin's comment was that being liked was very important in US politics. As an aside, this is why Joe Biden gets so far - he's actually likable - an idiot, a moron (not in the good way) and so forth - but he's actually likable. I wouldn't trust Biden with a burnt-out match, but I don't dislike him.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Here we go! at November 28, 2012 09:36 PM (gmoEG)

645 To no one in particular: Romney wasn't just stiff, he seemed too cautious, like someone hiding The Truth. Tht is partially why all the lies about him worked. The guy seemed to be walking on eggshells and in some kind of closet. I assume it is due to his dad saying he was "brainwashed" in Vietnam. Because of this, people did not trust him. I can see through Obama, but I'm willing to look for his faults, and they are obvious to me. He seems comfortable in his skin. Romney seemed liked he was wearing someone else's skin, and trying to hide that fact.


Posted by: Baldy at November 28, 2012 09:39 PM (opS9C)

646 I was seeking someone in the mold of Mourdock or Akin like Santorum. Or perhaps a womanizing philanderer, particularly one who treat cancer victims poorly. That's how you win the women swing vote.

The Real Julia.

Posted by: Julia at November 28, 2012 10:16 PM (GqYtm)

647
Weakest primary field in years. The best candidate out of the bunchwas tailor-madefor the "party of the rich" defense and also happened to be uniquely disqualified to argue aainst ObamaCare. It's unlikelythat anyone else in therunning would have done better.Gingrich is erratic, unprincipled and vainglorious but did sound sexy bashing the media. Cain was too raw and would have been killed on foreign policy among other areas. Bachmann and Santorumregularlygot matadoredby the media into sounding likescolding fanaticsand Perry acted like he was on ludes for the entirety of his brief candidacy. Pawlenty ? Hell, maybe he should have stayed in given that he'd likely have been the only mainstream-acceptable candidate besides Romney with much less potential baggage to boot.

If Ryan was ultimately willing to sign on as VP, why not just run in the primary ? He may kick himself in the ass for this for years to come - or he may be a genius in determining that beating Obama was a longshot after all. Time will tell on that.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at November 28, 2012 10:18 PM (WLuv5)

648 You moron moderates with your Akin jokes never get it. It's not POSITIONS designed to "appeal to women" that win their hearts and minds. Women are capable of voting for either a prolifer like Santorum or an Obama.

The person who wins wins not on issues (especially with females) but on "who understands a person like me" or "cares most about a person like me" etc.

IOW, psychological intangibles.

A person who communicates sincerity, which is worth a lot more than you think, tends to win with non-ideological persons, and they can even win by standing meanly, which Obama did, against a rich, cold person PERCEIVED (rightly or wrongly) to be stiff, and unlikable, etc.

Romney was not ideal, but he would have been portrayed as he was. The Dems would have tried on Santorum to go the "religious right nut" tactic, to be sure, but his SINCERITY and ability to appeal to blue collars was superior to Romney's approach of not offending anyone, standing for nothing and all things at the same time. Santorum would also have gone after Obama on Benghazi, HARD.

The person who is most charismatic wins, and it's always been this way. Kerry lost being Lurch from the Addam's Family against Dubya's likable beer drinking buddy. Got it?

Posted by: me at November 29, 2012 12:42 AM (K5uoe)

649 You have to divest yourself from this fallacy of assuming people vote logically or their interests. They dont.

It's about personality. 100000%

That's why the left took the most left winger in history and won TWICE with him, this time with 8% unemployment and a terrible record, Benghazi, and no financial crisis for the moderates who liked McCain and now Romney, thinking a social con will offend women (many women are in fact prolife with proper guidance) and give up on principles by not going with a solid base and THEN branching out to mods and indies as opposed to STARTING with one like Romney that no true believer likes, and hoping that the "appeal to mods and women" will somehow offset the lost base votes to win.

It never works.

It failed with Alf Landon in 1936, a candidate a lot like Romney. It failed in 1948 with Dewey and his uninspired pablum.

Obama is at least as left as Santorum is right, probably more so, it never stopped him with mods and females, or are only so-cons unelectable?

When are you guys going to learn PRECISE POSITIONS are NOT what wins elections. Personalities do, and gut level decisions by voters do.

Most of them cannot even TELL you details about their stances, which is why Obama ran only on tearing Romney down, did not even produce a new economic plan except a rehashed 10 page booklet DAYS out from the election...and won easily.

It's not fair, but people vote based on who they LIKE more, who seems to understand "regular people" more and such, not on issue dissection.

Only our and the left's ideologues are single issue types and so forth, and the whiny moderate pseudo analysts think they do. Most voters are idiots...

Posted by: me at November 29, 2012 12:53 AM (K5uoe)

650 Ron Paul.

Posted by: The guy who says Ron Paul at November 29, 2012 01:02 AM (QTVh2)

651 I stand to protect innocent life. I firmly believe, as does the scientific community, that a baby is human life at conception. I stand to defend that life. I stand to defend the elderly, infirm, mentally ill from the state or family destroying their life.

If a person of sound mind wants to off themselves or legally requested death in certain circumstances I support that. I also support capital punishment in cases where a party is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

As for drugs, marriage, the price of raisins I wish the government be not involved.

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 29, 2012 08:34 AM (T/L2Z)

652 "none of the above" is a valid choice. If the Republican party wanted people to vote for their candidate, they needed to FIND someone better than Mitt Romney. If "we don't have anyone better" was true, the Republican party did not deserve to win.

See, this is the answer of someone who doesn't definte themselves according to pure partisan loyalty; someone who has an existence outside of "go team red". You could have thought of this also.

Posted by: Rollory at November 29, 2012 09:37 AM (iWqAg)

653 61
45>>> Well, I am not. Remember Sarah Palin? Of course you do. Because you HATE her.

She wasn't on the ballot in my state.

or any state.

But keep on keepin' on.

What
level do you think she is? I mean, so long as we're indulging in
Dungeons and Dragons fantasy stuff. Do you think she's 14th level, or
maybe 20th? Is her Charisma an 18 or something godlike like a 22?Posted
by: ace at November 28, 2012 05:26 PM (LCRYB)

He meant that she was
an example of a conservative who is hated by the Republican party and
has been treated very badly by her putative allies, not a possible
candidate for 2012. Sheesh.***

He knew what was meant. He was on the bleeding edge of the portion of the party that sniped her from the sidelines, he ought to fucking well know what was meant.

Posted by: Klawnet at November 29, 2012 09:44 AM (ePxxX)

654 Umm . . . Santorum? The guy Ace actively campaigned against because he just couldn't handle the fact that said he -- like most Americans -- believes in an actual Devil? I love the way Ace ignores the fact that so many voters told pollsters they were turned off by Romney's rich-guy image. Santorum epitomized the common man -- the kind of guy that appeals to blue-collar workers like the ones in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

Not too surprising that a guy who is completely guilty of the thing the editorial describes can't quite "get" what's eating the writer. But that's just fine. Ace can "apologize" and then tell us he doesn't really understand why he needs to apologize.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 11:10 AM (FrJ3o)

655 How about we just say the Republicans threw Ron Paul and other anti-undeclared-war-anti-big-govt-and-love-our-country types overboard without actually debating those points from a pro-liberty, pro-Constitution position? I stayed home rather than vote because I despise Karl Rove and the Bush dynasty bozos. They hated Reagan and have done everything they can to undo what he accomplished. Romney is a less virile Bob Dole.

Posted by: poots at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (gDytV)






Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.7012 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.6172 seconds, 664 records returned.
Page size 425 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