It's Not Over Until The Liberal Republicans Win

I guess Ben has forsaken you so allow me to step in.

1. Liberal Republicans like former W. Bush aid Michael Gerson, just can't stop beating up on Goldwater.

The problem comes in viewing Goldwater as an example rather than as a warning. Conservatives sometimes describe his defeat as a necessary, preliminary step — a clarifying and purifying struggle — in the Reagan revolution. In fact, it was an electoral catastrophe that awarded Lyndon Johnson a powerful legislative majority, increased the liberal ambitions of the Great Society and caused massive distrust of the GOP among poor and ethnic voters. The party has never quite recovered. Ronald Reagan was, in part, elected president by undoing Goldwater’s impression of radicalism. And all of Reagan’s domestic achievements involved cleaning up just a small portion of the excesses that Goldwater’s epic loss enabled.

The Republican Party needs internal debate and populist energy. But it is not helped by nostalgia for a disaster.

It's funny how the liberals in the GOP keep going back to Goldwater. Are there no more modern examples of the GOP picking bad candidates for President that we might learn something from?

I guess we're just to chalk up loses by George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney to...well nothing. Those get airbrushed out of history. No we must forever be vigilant against the repetition of a one time event like Goldwater (who in today's environment of fairly stable red/blue voting patterns would have done as well as McCain or Romney).

Remember that the alternative to Goldwater in 1964 was Nelson Rockefeller who just happened to support much, if not all, of Lyndon Johnson's "great society".

It's almost as if people like Gerson and Jennifer Rubin aren't trying to improve conservatism but push liberalism.

Speaking of which....


2. Mitt Romney can't or won't shut the hell up.

[Romney] may not direct a high-powered political-action committee or hold a formal position, but with the two living former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — shying away from campaign politics, Romney, 67, has begun to embrace the role of party elder, believing he can shape the national debate and help guide his fractured party to a governing majority.

Insisting he won’t seek the presidency again, the former GOP nominee has endorsed at least 16 candidates this cycle, many of them establishment favorites who backed his campaigns. One Romney friend said he wants to be the “anti-Jim DeMint,” a reference to the former South Carolina senator and current Heritage Foundation chairman who has been a conservative kingmaker in Republican primaries. Romney’s approach is to reward allies, boost rising stars and avoid conflict.

Let me remind you of a few things:

A-Romney was a terrible candidate

B-You can say, "but he was right about Obama". Yes and so was everyone on this blog. It's not a really impressive thing.

C-The whole idea of, "if the election were held today he'd win" is meaningless. It's not going to be held today for starters and just about any Republican would have as much of a shot in this hypothetical rematch as Romney.

D-He was untrustworthy on almost every issue.

That Romney would be better than Obama is a useless metric. So would just about any jackass off the street. Personally, I'd give the random jackass a better chance of winning simply because I know for a fact what a terrible candidate Romney is.

George W. Bush won two terms as President and he's been as quiet as a church mouse for going on 6 years. Mitt Romney got his ass kicked in one election and he can't keep his shut. Advantage: Bush.

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:11 AM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 First

Posted by: Bruce Lee's Fist at April 18, 2014 10:16 AM (M+evy)

2 Foist?

Posted by: TiminAL at April 18, 2014 10:16 AM (A9c4d)

3 Dang!

Posted by: TiminAL at April 18, 2014 10:16 AM (A9c4d)

4 Not first.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 18, 2014 10:16 AM (DrWcr)

5
Is there a particular blog out there where you get all these Dump On Republican stories?

I'm not against dumping on Republicans, I'm just asking.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:17 AM (Dv34P)

6 I heard Ann Coulter yesterday during a radio show say that Mitt Romney would be her choice for 2016. I just thought I'd throw that out there so I could be topical or something.

Posted by: Big McLargehuge at April 18, 2014 10:17 AM (o1CfD)

7 Goldwater lost because he picked a bad VP candidate that killed him with the daisy commercial. VP picks seldom help, but they can really kill. Also, at the time the South was still very much in control of the Democrats.


And if the RNC keep running "moderate" (meaning liberal) candidates they will lose forever.

Posted by: Vic at April 18, 2014 10:17 AM (T2V/1)

8 Nicely done....

Although I disagree that Goldwater "would have done as well as McCain or Romney."

I think his brand of conservatism might have resonated with the voters, especially because he would have been able to articulate it much more effectively than the other bozos.

Yes, I am dreaming, but.....

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 18, 2014 10:17 AM (QFxY5)

9 Lucy is teeing up the football

Posted by: Old Glazier at April 18, 2014 10:18 AM (XFES9)

10 Agree mostly on Romney needing to be quiet... I am disturbed that he might actually try again if say... Jeb Bush doesn't run. One would think he would be trounced in the primaries, but stranger things have happened.

I remember vividly having a toast in a bar in DC with my brothers the demise of the McCain campaign in august of 2007, when it was announced that the Ron Paul money bombs had led to him trouncing McCain in fundraising the previous quarter... his campaign was dead on arrival, and look what happened?

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at April 18, 2014 10:19 AM (n/ogz)

11
George Bush is too quiet, if you ask me. He's useless.

And if he gave a damn about his country he'd speak up. ..loudly.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:19 AM (Dv34P)

12 New Hillary memoir to be titled “Hard Choices”



Choice #1: Diplomatic staff and security detail are under attack in Libya and need help RIGHT NOW.



Choice #2: Go back to bed and hope they can manage until tomorrow morning's Presidential Daily Briefing at 11AM.




Posted by: EC at April 18, 2014 10:19 AM (GQ8sn)

13 VP picks seldom help, but they can really kill.


Palin. Help or really helped?

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:19 AM (d0Dmj)

14 America is hungry for Jeb Bush.
He'll fight for.....what, exactly?

Posted by: Lizzy at April 18, 2014 10:20 AM (IdOTf)

15 alright , to get this of our chests, and clear the air .

Rino!

Stupidy social con!

Posted by: willow at April 18, 2014 10:20 AM (nqBYe)

16 I really have to say, and I think Chi-Town Jerry would agree with me on this, that it is high time for the GOP to dump conservatives hard. Especially social conservatives. If we can rid of the religious yahoos and populist fruitcakes, I'm sure our crack team of K-Streeters and economics professors will be unleashed to appeal to ethnic and low-income voters.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 10:20 AM (YYJjz)

17

anti-DeMint...

Wth?

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (IXrOn)

18 Goldwater transplanted to today might have a good shot, he'd have the libertarian domestic issues that everyone loves about Rand Paul, but have a bit more credibility with defense hawks.

It's an interesting thought experiment.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (n/ogz)

19 13 Palin. Help or really helped?


Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:19 AM (d0Dmj)

I think Palin did help McShitty. I have often said that if McShitty had not picked Palin as VP he would have lost every State.

Posted by: Vic at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (T2V/1)

20 14 America is hungry for Jeb Bush. He'll fight for.....what, exactly?
Posted by: Lizzy at April 18, 2014 10:20 AM (IdOTf)

Amnesty. The dumbing down of our children (Common Core). God knows what else.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (DrWcr)

21 JebGW Bush 2016!

Posted by: RolandTHTG at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (QM5S2)

22 Actually I think that it's past time that W had something to say just to highlight ANY(?) differences.

The old rules about don't apply since we've had Carter AND Clinton take every opportunity to use whatever pulpit they have Left.

…….and I don't even want to get started on how Poppy greets Jugears and Clinton, both.

This IS NO Situation Normal, but it is all fucked up.

Romney is harmless + useless, not a factor.

Posted by: ontherocks at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (mJ8Ew)

23 I think Palin did help McShitty. I have often said that if McShitty had not picked Palin as VP he would have lost every State.



She had me fired up. And for more reasons than she was just hawt.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:22 AM (d0Dmj)

24
Romney did great with independents. Romney did great in the first debate. And then Romney took a knee in mid October as if he had already won.

Plus...that fat shit Chris Christie.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:22 AM (Dv34P)

25 The really interesting thing about Romney is he relentlessly sold his "management competence" above all, and yet, when Election Day arrived, we learned that he had been completely scammed by his consultants. The "get out the vote" system the campaign used was never tested and didn't work. The management of the campaign mechanics, the inner workings of ANY campaign turned out to be mismanaged at a really obvious level.

So when we say Romney was a "terrible candidate" we mean (generally) that he's a bad politician. That's true, he was.

But it also means he was an incompetent politician and, oddly, a really bad campaign manager.

Posted by: MTF at April 18, 2014 10:22 AM (F58x4)

26 In before the whiny pissy little shits!

Posted by: buzzion at April 18, 2014 10:23 AM (LI48c)

27 I like W in the main, but, yeah. How about painting a picture of the death throes of the USA?

Maybe he just feels his name is too toxic and would only be a weapon for the MFM.

Posted by: Gem at April 18, 2014 10:23 AM (zw+pb)

28 Drew I don't know why you, and others, have a bug up your ass about Romney. Yeah he was piss poor candidate, but since this is still America for the time being, he is free to talk. Ya don't like what he says or don't give a shit, fine, but let's concentrate our fire on the real enemy: obama, the democrats, the liberals, the progressives, the MSM, the Liberal/Communist dominated education system in America, and LIVs.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:23 AM (t3UFN)

29
Anybody who thinks the country was going to elect ANY Republican in 1964 is delusional. The Dems had the bloody shirt of a martyr to wave around, and Goldwater STILL managed to do better than a lot of governors and liberal Republican congresscritters.

They actively worked against him, and then immediately following the election acted like it was the death of conservatism for the Republican Party.

Liar then, liars now.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 10:23 AM (TOk1P)

30 Palin was a big plus for that Arizona Asshole. More voted for her than him.

That was before she'd been character assassinated for 5+ years.

Posted by: --- at April 18, 2014 10:23 AM (MMC8r)

31 @ 24 - "Plus...that fat shit Chris Christie."

...who is yet another example of the "establishment/moderate/RINO" wing of the GOP.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 10:24 AM (YYJjz)

32 If only we had supported DrewMs candidate , Newt , everything would have turned out peachy.

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 10:24 AM (m2CN7)

33 "I think Palin did help McShitty. I have often said that if McShitty had not picked Palin as VP he would have lost every State. "

Agree with this, Palin has not helped herself since the campaign, but she gets unfair blame form the establishment.

McCain stood up there at the convention asking everyone to fight with him, and then basically surrendered to the Obama Campaign.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at April 18, 2014 10:24 AM (n/ogz)

34 Good points, DrewM.

Posted by: Serious Cat at April 18, 2014 10:24 AM (UypUQ)

35
"Mitt Romney got his ass kicked in one election"




I beg to differ. I got my ass kicked in TWO elections. Lest we forget the pasting Tedward Kennedy gave me in '94.

Posted by: Mitt "Landslide" Romney

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 18, 2014 10:24 AM (kdS6q)

36 Palin. Help or really helped?

I suspect she was a wash- that for every conservative she brought to the polls, she alienated a squishy "independent".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 18, 2014 10:25 AM (SY2Kh)

37 Posted by: Insomniac at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (DrWcr)

Somehow, I think old Jebbie would completely be on board with kinder, gentler fixes to the technical management of the Obamacide debacle.

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 18, 2014 10:25 AM (o3MSL)

38 This country wasn't going to piss on JFK's grave in the first post-Camelot election.

Posted by: --- at April 18, 2014 10:26 AM (MMC8r)

39 Romney was not a piss poor candidate. That's hindsight propaganda by people on the right who never supported him in the first place.

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 10:26 AM (m2CN7)

40 Can't we all just- oh, hell with it, we're screwed.

Posted by: Reginald Denny at April 18, 2014 10:27 AM (zw+pb)

41 the liberals helped sink Goldwater, because they kept Nelson in their trapper keeper, in the medium run, Reagan, the standard bearer of the movement, prevailed, but then they relapsed, Nixon was almost entirely a Rockefeller platform, Kissinger, Moynihan, EPA, price controls, quotas the whole shebang,

Who fought the left, really only Reagan, on three continents, and in the federal bureaucracy,

Posted by: arnim zola at April 18, 2014 10:27 AM (Jsiw/)

42 God protected U.S. from Mitt. And Mitt in his heart of hearts knows it. The denouement is starting. All the people that B.O. has been oppressing are all the people he needs to create wealth. Obama has killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Millions will go hungry because of him. Mitt could have kicked the can down the road a few more years.

Posted by: Huggy at April 18, 2014 10:27 AM (6AkFL)

43 Romney was not a piss poor candidate. That's hindsight propaganda by people on the right who never supported him in the first place.

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 10:26 AM (m2CN7)

Yeah he was. He had to call out obama as a liar. It would not have been pretty but it was his only chance. And he did get waylaid by those 2 fat bastards crowley and christie

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:28 AM (t3UFN)

44
Cruz would do horribly in a national election. Walker would lose WI to hillary clinton, along with OH, VA, and FLA.

The best "national" candidate would be Rand Paul, and he'll still lose to clinton.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:29 AM (Dv34P)

45 "McCain stood up there at the convention asking everyone to fight with him, and then basically surrendered to the Obama Campaign."

This! And whenever Palin *tried* to fight (or the blogosphere for that matter) she was stomped hard by what was supposed to be the Republican campaign. It was a definite education.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 10:29 AM (GDulk)

46
28 -

Drew is at the same point a lot of us are quickly reaching: that it's time to kill the Republican Party, once and for all.

So no, I don't agree that the concentration of fire needs to be all on Obama and the Democrats. They're only half the problem, and frankly, one none of us has any power to control.

But killing the ninny Republicans? That we can do. And maybe the start is to deny they their expectations of a landslide election in '14.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 10:29 AM (TOk1P)

47 Someone has been drinking the rand paul cool aid I see

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:29 AM (t3UFN)

48 23 I think Palin did help McShitty. I have often said that if McShitty had not picked Palin as VP he would have lost every State.



She had me fired up. And for more reasons than she was just hawt.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:22 AM (d0Dmj)


She fired up the base but was probably a net drag in the general. The interview with Katie Courscrunt was a killer for the whole ticket.

Posted by: joncelli at April 18, 2014 10:30 AM (RD7QR)

49 Hairy Reid would have called the Founding Fathers domestic terrorists . . . .

Posted by: RoyalOil at April 18, 2014 10:30 AM (VjL9S)

50 Hairy Reid would have called the Founding Fathers domestic terrorists . . . .
Posted by: RoyalOil at April 18, 2014 10:30 AM (VjL9S)


harry reid would have been wearing a red coat

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (t3UFN)

51 @ 46 - "But killing the ninny Republicans? That we can do. And maybe the start is to deny they their expectations of a landslide election in '14."

Butbutbut this is the MOST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVAH!

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (YYJjz)

52
39 -

If Romney was not a piss poor candidate, he would be President right now. The results are self-evident.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (TOk1P)

53
McCain actually endorsed obama on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (Dv34P)

54
Romney was not a piss poor candidate.
Posted by: polynikes




Spent a billion -- with a B -- more than Mccain, all to win 1.5% more of the popular vote and an additional 23 electoral votes.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (kdS6q)

55 And she has still been a standard bearer for much of the resistance for the last 5 years, so who does the party support, the bystander for much of that time,

Posted by: arnim zola at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (Jsiw/)

56 Yeah he was. He had to call out obama as a liar. It would not have been pretty but it was his only chance. And he did get waylaid by those 2 fat bastards crowley and christie
Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:28 AM (t3UFN)


And he relied on ORCA. And aside from the first debate ran the type of campaign that all those "who never supported him in the first place" warned that he would run.

Posted by: buzzion at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (LI48c)

57 McCain actually endorsed obama on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:31 AM (Dv34P)

No he did it on National TV during a debate

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:32 AM (t3UFN)

58 From the previous thread,

When I lived in Chicago, a $20 bill wrapped around your driver's license was said to accomplish the same thing as the $2500 license plate frame the rich people in Silicon Valley are using.

Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 10:33 AM (YBusZ)

59 Have you guys been able to scrape off your 'I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney' bumperstickers yet?

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 10:34 AM (m2CN7)

60
But how much blame goes to Conservatives talking down Romney for most of 2012? Remember all that Cornbrero shit?

Our side will repeat the mistake in 2016 -- run down the candidates and damage the shit out of the nominee.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:34 AM (Dv34P)

61 George W. Bush won two terms as President and he's been as quiet as a
church mouse for going on 6 years. Mitt Romney got his ass kicked in one
election and he can't keep his shut.

Bush 43 was also the second most conservative candidate the Republicans have run, at least since Goldwater (and probably Coolidge).*

In fact the largest determinant in whether a Republican candidate will win the presidency (at least since 196 is whether the electorate views him as a conservative.

*Sad but true.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:35 AM (78TbK)

62 But killing the ninny Republicans? That we can do. And maybe the start is to deny they their expectations of a landslide election in '14.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 10:29 AM (TOk1P)

and to the most important election ever.

---
while i understand the sentiment, and i don't think the republicans currently in office will change being quislings or complicit.
what other chance do we have?
how many more years of dem control before we are jailed for opinions , this is not to argue, i'm really wondering what our chances of freedom are with no attempt to stop the jerks?

Posted by: willow at April 18, 2014 10:35 AM (nqBYe)

63 Plus you had the problem, that while Romney did call out Volodya, his staff notably Rick Davis, was lobbying for Yanukovich's government, on their off hours,

Posted by: arnim zola at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (Jsiw/)

64 Frankly, I think the Republicans should move their convention to mid-October. Primaries shouldn't start until August.

Given the media environment, it's best to keep the media guessing, then make your exposure short

Posted by: Barry Goldwater at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (e8kgV)

65 Heh. The other day I had the Rockies-Padres baseball game on the teevee. Sideline fluff reporter for Root Sports did a brief spot with Mitt Romney who was at the game with some of his grandkids. The young lady introduced the segment by saying, "I'm here with Mitt Romney, who of course was involved in the 2012 Presidential election..."


My first thought was, "I'm not sure this word 'involved' means what you think it does."

Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (MKpBT)

66 If you go back and look at the Republican candidates in the primary for 1964 you will see every one of them was a hard core liberal except Goldwater.


So they have somewhat improved. Now only about half to three quarters are that way.

Posted by: Vic at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (T2V/1)

67
Yeah, really. Some on our side are responsible for killing turnout and they have the nerve to complain Romney lost.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (Dv34P)

68 Our side will repeat the mistake in 2016 -- run down the candidates and damage the shit out of the nominee.
***
Romney and Obama are on the same side ultimately. The former is just a hell of a lot more competent of a technocrat.

If the Republicans run another DIABLO, they'll lose again whoever the Dems run.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (78TbK)

69 The GOP leadership's record of epic FAIL entitles them to shut the fuck up and go drown their stupid assed selves. Fucking stupid bastards. They are incapable of looking at a situation and facing facts. They suffer from the same brain ailments as the leftards, because they ARE leftards.

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 10:37 AM (xWW96)

70 George Bush is too quiet, if you ask me. He's useless.

And if he gave a damn about his country he'd speak up. ..loudly.

No. If W spoke out the Dems would be happy as a pig in shit. It would allow them to run against W again rather than trying to run on their record.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 18, 2014 10:37 AM (lr3d7)

71 Romney had a chance to speak out and that was during the 2nd and 3rd debates after he masterfully kicked Obama's ass in the first.

But, instead chose to become a weak little weasel in the 2nd and 3rd debates.

So...

He got nothing to say that I want to hear.

He had a chance to help America avoid all the crap TFG is piling on her and chose-

He chose to be an ineffectual weasel so he wouldn't be called RAAAAYYYCCCIIISSS or something.

He chose to lose.

Fuck'im.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 18, 2014 10:37 AM (0cMkb)

72 Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:34 AM (Dv34P)

I talked him *up* IRL after he won the nomination. That ORCA scam is humiliating after that.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 10:37 AM (GDulk)

73 There's probably at least 6 main points here where ol' Drew doesn't know WTH he's talking about, but let me take this opportunity to vent my disappointment with ol' Mitt for something he said recently. He said he was "getting passionate about" Global Warming.


Really Mitt? When it's gotten to the point where you'd have to be a complete goddamn fool to buy any of that crap, NOW you're going to climb on board that crazy train? 15+ yrs of increasing CO2 with zero warming. Thirty yrs of being told "we must act NOW, or it will be disaster in 20 yrs." WTH?


Sometimes I wonder how that guy ever made enough money to feed himself.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 10:38 AM (saDM3)

74 Spent a billion -- with a B -- more than Mccain, all to win 1.5% more of the popular vote and an additional 23 electoral votes.

Against an incumbent who still retained positive personal approval ratings- especially in the media.

Mitt wasn't an ideal candidate, but neither was he a terrible one. Not like, say, Newt Gingrich would've been.

McCain is an asshole, but likewise I don't see any of the 2008 Republican candidates winning where he lost.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 18, 2014 10:38 AM (SY2Kh)

75 Romney and Obama are on the same side ultimately. The former is just a hell of a lot more competent of a technocrat.

If the Republicans run another DIABLO, they'll lose again whoever the Dems run.
Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:36 AM (78TbK)

Oh please Romney and obama are NOT on the same side. Is Romney conservative enough for most of us- no of course not, but to compare him to the most un-American President we ever had is absurd.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:38 AM (t3UFN)

76 I don't particularly disagree with anything in this post, but damn, I could do without the lecture first thing in the morning.

Posted by: Xander Crews at April 18, 2014 10:39 AM (oHFV3)

77 Mitt sticking his schnoz into things is annoying, but the really irritating thing is his spawn doing so. I am so sick of the children of failed candidates and politicians thinking they have a right to our attention.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 10:39 AM (zDsvJ)

78 Romney outspent the opposition 50/1, we know he thought the real enemy was, it wasn't Obama, Fehrnstrom got kudos in GQ for it,

Posted by: arnim zola at April 18, 2014 10:39 AM (Jsiw/)

79 Keep talking yourselves into defeat. Apparently defeat in 2014 is now on the table, too.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 10:39 AM (HubSo)

80 as for Romney, I liked him and he might have been a decent President, i don't know i do know politicians lie a lot. and mass-care
But i didn't understand running him with Our hopes of defeating Obamacare having been one of our main complaints and something we were committed o trying to stop.

Posted by: willow at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (nqBYe)

81 "McCain stood up there at the convention asking everyone to fight with
him, and then basically surrendered to the Obama Campaign.
***
Because to McCain and Romney *we* are the problem NOT the technocrats currently running DC.

Yes, they want to replace some of the higher level technocrats with their own allies, but they sure as hell don't want to roll back Obama's Leviathan...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (78TbK)

82 To be fair to Romney, Obama did substantially out raise and out spend him. And that's not counting the gazillions of free in-kind corporate contributions the MSM provided.

That's a head wind that Christ himself would have had a hard time overcoming.

(Come to think of it, that would be a pretty funny satire. The Dems' negative campaign against Christ -- "Turning water into wine ... providing uninspected loaves and fishes-- Can we take a chance on a man who promotes irresponsible drinking and violation of food safety laws?...")

Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (YBusZ)

83 I could do without the lecture first thing in the morning.
Posted by: Xander Crews at April 18, 2014 10:39 AM (oHFV3)


Then I suggest getting up much earlier in the AM

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (t3UFN)

84
btw, Romney probably did 'win' the election, which is something to take into account when evaluating his candidacy.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (Dv34P)

85 Off topic, but why did the Steyn article disappear? I've been to every link to the spectator UK And it says article not found.

Posted by: Auntie Doodles at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (IQU7B)

86 Ugh, so tired on RINOs. Jeb and Christy in 2016
make my brain hurt.

Also, any discussion of the 2012 election should include an * around any vote counts/statistics because no way it wasn't stolen. Voting day shenanigans + everything that's come out about IRS and other federal activities to suppress conservative political action (including cleaning the voter rolls) indicate that maybe no Republican candidate could have won unless he/she managed to get a good 15-20% more votes than Obama (i.e. greater than the margin for fraud).

Off to work....

Posted by: Lizzy at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (IdOTf)

87 I'm beginning to realize what throws me about Romney. He seems, like Bush, to be a good and decent man; indeed, in his private life he has shown incredible character and done much worldly good.

But in his public, political life, like Bush, he embraces policies that are proven failures and indeed produce more immediate harm than any potential future good they can offer.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 18, 2014 10:41 AM (XO6WW)

88 No. If W spoke out the Dems would be happy as a pig
in shit. It would allow them to run against W again rather than trying
to run on their record.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 18, 2014 10:37 AM (lr3d7)

^^ this

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 10:41 AM (HubSo)

89
"29
Anybody who thinks the country was going to elect ANY Republican in 1964 is delusional."


This. Goldwater might have beat Kennedy, but NOBODY was going to beat the martyred JFK's successor.(LBJ, or anyone else who had been in that spot.)

Posted by: irright at April 18, 2014 10:41 AM (DtNNC)

90
Romney outspent the opposition 50/1, we know he thought the real enemy was, it wasn't Obama, Fehrnstrom got kudos in GQ for it,


hahahaha!

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:41 AM (Dv34P)

91 Posted by: naturalfakeatApril18, 2014 10:37 AM(0cMkb)

Agreed. He did so well in the first debate it was shocking to see the difference in the other two.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 10:41 AM (GDulk)

92
65 -

No, I think that's brilliant. Mitt was sorta "involved" in the election. The question is, just HOW involved he was.

Not enough, obviously.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 10:42 AM (TOk1P)

93 According to Wikipedia, Goldwater "suffered from a lack of support from his own party . . ." The more things change . . . .

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 18, 2014 10:42 AM (ee9LE)

94 Here is the Idiocy of the Republican Elite.

Gosh, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul really bring out a lot of excitement and energy in voters. We should.

A. Harness that energy to build the party; people are obviously responding to them.

B. Destroy them at all costs and alienate those voters.

And which do they invariably choose?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 18, 2014 10:42 AM (6GRz5)

95 (Come to think of it, that would be a pretty funny satire. The Dems' negative campaign against Christ --

They've been doing that for awhile now already. And its not a satire. They're serious.

Posted by: buzzion at April 18, 2014 10:42 AM (LI48c)

96 So does this mean we support Christie or Bush then?

Posted by: blaster at April 18, 2014 10:42 AM (4+AaH)

97 I think Palin was a net help to McCain, not that anyone could really pull that lame candidate's ass over the finish line. He was finished when he confessed that he didn't know much about economic issues and suspended his campaign.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (zDsvJ)

98 You know what a bus full of GOP establishment going over a 500 foot cliff at 100 mph is? My fucking wet dream.

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (xWW96)

99 >>10 Agree mostly on Romney needing to be quiet... I am disturbed that he might actually try again

I'm a little worried he, or one of his kids, will run for governor of my state.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (zDsvJ)

100 A. Harness that energy to build the party; people are obviously responding to them.

B. Destroy them at all costs and alienate those voters.


Apparently energy is scary. People will camp out overnight to get Sarah Palin to put a signature on a book.

So the GOP must destroy her at all costs, because nobody wants that kind of enthusiasm.

Posted by: blaster at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (4+AaH)

101 81
"McCain stood up there at the convention asking everyone to fight with

him, and then basically surrendered to the Obama Campaign.
***


***
My friend, it is racist to campaign against a black man; especially one who should cause us no fear and who would make a fine President.

Posted by: J. Mc III at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (YBusZ)

102 Personally, I was shocked at Romney's excellent performance in the first debate. He didn't do so well in the next ones. Heh, heh.

Posted by: Monica Crowley at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (ILBCY)

103 Oh please Romney and obama are NOT on the same side. Is Romney
conservative enough for most of us- no of course not, but to compare him
to the most un-American President we ever had is absurd.
***
Yes, Mitt Romneycare has a totally different view of government then Obama. That's why he was one of the first people on the "fix" Obamacare bandwagon.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (78TbK)

104 (Come to think of it, that would be a pretty funny satire. The Dems'
negative campaign against Christ -- "Turning water into wine ...
providing uninspected loaves and fishes-- Can we take a chance on a man
who promotes irresponsible drinking and violation of food safety
laws?...")



Yeah. But watching Him run into the DNC convention with a whip turning over the tables would be awesome!

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (d0Dmj)

105 @73 "I talked him *up* IRL after he won the nomination. That ORCA scam is humiliating after that."


I really wonder if people were too eager to be dismissive about the ORCA thing. I'm not a big expert on such things, but when everybody's passwords are suddenly no good on the Big Day, that sounds like malware to me, not the product of poorly designed and tested software.


Around the same time, the US govt sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program with malware. If the IRS was brought to bear against Republicans in that election, why would we assume that national cyber assets would stay holstered?


We're learning about higher levels of wanton corruption in the Obama administration almost daily.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (saDM3)

106 A. Harness that energy to build the party; people are obviously responding to them.

B. Destroy them at all costs and alienate those voters.

And which do they invariably choose?

I know, I know.

Posted by: GOPe at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (muKUS)

107 Romney was not a piss poor candidate. That's hindsight propaganda by people on the right who never supported him in the first place. Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 10:26 AM (m2CN7)



His own kid said the family wasn't surehe wanted it bad enough.

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at April 18, 2014 10:46 AM (rXcBX)

108 To continue my pointless pitching and moaning, the more I find out about this administration generally and about vote fraud particularly, the more I doubt we lost the vote. We lost the counting.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 18, 2014 10:46 AM (ee9LE)

109 Just one bit of oddity that has been bothering me about the Nevada situation --

Isn't the net effect of Nevada being 85% federally-owned that the BLM "owns" an entire state? The current head of the BLM is Reid's creation, so Reid has a private army in Nevada. That really, really bothers me. Reid has a private army to patrol and control an entire state.

Posted by: Mustbequantum at April 18, 2014 10:46 AM (MIKMs)

110 He had quit the campaign, on the advice of Dr. Evil, He and 'Norma Desmond' followed the Jones memo, (other subsequent Romney hire)
that preemptively blamed the loss on her, hence the 'Game Change' narrative,

I care more about issues than personalities, Romney was a pleasant figurehead, who pretended to contest, but not in any serious way, this is what the Top Men wanted,

Posted by: arnim zola at April 18, 2014 10:47 AM (Jsiw/)

111 If the IRS was brought to bear against Republicans
in that election, why would we assume that national cyber assets would
stay holstered?





We're learning about higher levels of wanton corruption in the Obama administration almost daily.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (saDM3)

***************
Interesting. Never thought about that. And they wouldn't need to be national cyber assets anyway -- just some OFA hackers in Silicon Valley (or offshore).

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 10:47 AM (HubSo)

112 I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it
more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to
promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass
laws, but to repeal them.

I am perfectly willing to lose on that platform. If this is not your platform, don't bother calling, and I don't care what "party" you say you are. Disaster, you say? The real disaster is when no faction on the national scene represents this platform.

Certain forms of moderation are not, and will never be, a virtue. If I'm going to be steam-rollered anyway, let's at least have a genuine poll of who didn't go quietly.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at April 18, 2014 10:47 AM (xq1UY)

113 Mitt Romney sucks. If you need any more proof, 'TrueCon' Mitt wanted Brewer to veto the bill which would protect bakers from lawsuits and prosecution by the gay mafia.

Mitt Romney was the lesser if two evils. He's still a fascist thug jerkoff.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 18, 2014 10:47 AM (uhAkr)

114 but NOBODY was going to beat the martyred JFK's successor.(LBJ, or anyone else who had been in that spot.)



That thief didn't need the martyrdom to win that election. He would have stole it all on his own.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:48 AM (d0Dmj)

115 Saying that someone should just shut up is a pretty stupid argument, and the GWB comparison does not work at all.

(Al Gore lost what should have been a slam-dunk election, and he never shut up, by the way.)

The more significant point, however, is that this blog has spent much time of late lamenting the loss of free speech. If more speech is a good thing, then whether one agrees with Romney or not, a position that he should just shut up is counter-productive.

Moreover, if he's such a terrible campaigner, then having him be the voice of the moderate wing should be a good thing, no?

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at April 18, 2014 10:48 AM (dqzWI)

116
All that voter turnout/ground game is overblown bullpoop.

Other than not-being-obama, Romney didn't give people a single reason to come out and vote For Him.

Which, btw, is exactly what's happening again in 2014 with the R's.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:48 AM (Dv34P)

117 I really wonder if people were too eager to be dismissive about the ORCA thing. I'm not a big expert on such things, but when everybody's passwords are suddenly no good on the Big Day, that sounds like malware to me, not the product of poorly designed and tested software.
--

Nah, I think it was poor design/execution, not sabotage.

The folks around here, big whigs in LDS circles who made large donations to Mitt, were appalled by the team Mitt assembled. A lot of them were chosen based on connections rather than skills.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 10:48 AM (zDsvJ)

118
To be fair to Romney, Obama did substantially out raise and out spend him.
Posted by: Roscoe



Nope.

Total Operating Expenditures

Republicans: $885.6 million
Democrats: $919.3 million

http://tinyurl.com/cg7lamb

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 18, 2014 10:48 AM (kdS6q)

119 Around the same time, the US govt sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program with malware. If the IRS was brought to bear against Republicans in that election, why would we assume that national cyber assets would stay holstered? We're learning about higher levels of wanton corruption in the Obama administration almost daily.
Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (saDM3)


Even assuming the possibility of malware. Why in the fuck would you heavily rely on a never before used in a real election GOTV program? Basically abandoning the traditional methods of GOTV for it.

Posted by: buzzion at April 18, 2014 10:48 AM (LI48c)

120 Gosh, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul really bring out a lot of excitement and energy in voters. We should.

A. Harness that energy to build the party; people are obviously responding to them.

B. Destroy them at all costs and alienate those voters.
***
You are presuming that the Republican leadership wants an energized base that will elect them AND push for the sort of policies Paul and Cruz support.

If you instead presume that they do NOT want those sort of policies their actions become MUCH more explicable.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:49 AM (78TbK)

121 Well, time to saddle up the old slow three-legged pony. Those tortoises aren't going to wrangle themselves.


Later.

Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 18, 2014 10:49 AM (MKpBT)

122 Great thing about Season 4 of MadMen were the "extras" on the disks. They had all the political campaign commercials from 1964.

Wow, Goldwater was proved right with his dire predictions about how the 60s would turn out. It's hard to compare him with others.

Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act, which lost him the Liberals, AND the South voted Democrat, anyway.

Posted by: danieljeyn at April 18, 2014 10:49 AM (E2iQw)

123 @98 - "You know what a bus full of GOP establishment going over a 500 foot cliff at 100 mph is?"

A great start?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 10:49 AM (YYJjz)

124 Sad to say but I've come to the conclusion that conservatism has lost (at least for some decades and perhaps until the leftist bring the economic system crashing down or enact a despotic world government that after a few centuries becomes so complacent that it collapses or is overcome from radicals and insurgents within.)

I say this because no matter what polls or demographics you look at the majority of the electorate votes liberal/leftist. There's a number of reasons for that and there aren't any of them that can reasonably be changed by rhetoric or persuasion.

Since the GOP is "Hellbent" on passing amnesty, I can't see that situation changing to the better anytime soon and all it will take is one or two more elections of leftists to finally tilt the country's government into one of central control with lethal penalties for failure to conform and perhaps even outright outlawing of the party.

If they don't actually start rounding conservatives up, it will be because they see the dangers and will let the system grind them to pieces and marginalize them until they can no longer cause any trouble for the ruling elite. (you can't fight if your ill and can't see a doctor because your health care has been canceled and no doctor can legally give you care.)

Conservatism was defeated 30 years ago when the Schools and Media became infested with leftists and they have continued spreading their disease of the hive mind to other lesser institutions to the extent that trying to recoup any of that lost ground is a fool's errand. Never to be realized in this decade or many others to come.

We just don't have the numbers (sanity, logic and reason have always been in short supply) and we don't control the major organs of propaganda and of course you can't get the truth from them.

With the coming influx of illiterate left leaning poverty stricken peons from the south, we will no longer have even close to any chance of tilting the balance by information or persuasion.

They've won and we should admit it and strive to protect ourselves from their insanity and depravity in hopes the collapse comes before they begin murdering people.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Waiting For SMODOT) at April 18, 2014 10:50 AM (JS0vr)

125 Yes, Mitt Romneycare has a totally different view of government then Obama. That's why he was one of the first people on the "fix" Obamacare bandwagon.
Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM (78TbK)

I was against nominating him because of the Romneycare connection, but my point still stands: to call him the same as obama is absurd

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:50 AM (t3UFN)

126 Right on cue, our great conservative house speaker says he is "Hell bent (on further hollowing out and alienating the middle class) passing (totallynot amnesty) immigration reform this year."

Posted by: traye at April 18, 2014 10:50 AM (muKUS)

127 "In fact the largest determinant in whether a Republican candidate will win the presidency (at least since 196 is whether the electorate views him as a conservative."

@61: Are you sure about that? I realize that a lot of conservatives don't consider McCain or Romney to be conservatives. But liberals and Democrats do.

In any event, that doesn't make sense. If the electorate is looking for a conservative, why would they elect Obama president twice?

Posted by: Joshua at April 18, 2014 10:50 AM (oCZ4e)

128 108
To continue my pointless pitching and moaning, the more I find out about
this administration generally and about vote fraud particularly, the
more I doubt we lost the vote. We lost the counting.

Posted by: WalrusRex


***

"As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?" -- William Marcy Tweed.

Posted by: Boss Tweed at April 18, 2014 10:51 AM (YBusZ)

129 Was JFK popular, or a cheater who won through fraud?

I'm sure a guy who cheats on his wife is above-board in all his other dealings. Because I grew up in the 90s and that retarded logic is accepted.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 18, 2014 10:51 AM (uhAkr)

130 If more speech is a good thing, then whether one agrees with Romney or not, a position that he should just shut up is counter-productive.
----

Obviously he has the RIGHT to flap his gums, but the question is how helpful is it for our failed POTUS candidate, who had not ever been the leader of the GOP and is not currently an office holder, to insert himself into issues as the 2014 election approaches.

The question is what is to be gained by him yammering away? All it does is remind people of his lackluster, uninspiring run. And it gets the hackles up of the conservative wing of the party.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 10:51 AM (zDsvJ)

131
We really ought to be looking forward and into what is staring us right in the face.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:51 AM (Dv34P)

132 I don't buy the argument that Goldwater was a 'necessary, clarifying, purifying step' (paraphrasing) as a prelude to Reagan, either. Goldwater lost because--like Dole, like McCain, like Romney--he wasn't an especially good candidate, period. Think I'm wrong? Go on YouTube and look up some of Goldwater's speeches and interviews. We're not talking Mr. Charisma here. Goldwater just couldn't connect with people, at least in my view. Reagan could. So could Clinton. So could George W. Bush, at least to an extent. That's one of the big reasons why they won.

Posted by: troyriser at April 18, 2014 10:51 AM (2jF2B)

133 Romney sure did a great job picking cronies and the awesome ORCA program.

Posted by: commentorior at April 18, 2014 10:52 AM (BrAHD)

134 19
I think Palin did help McShitty. I have often said that if McShitty had not picked Palin as VP he would have lost every State.

Posted by: Vic at April 18, 2014 10:21 AM (T2V/1)


Someone wrote an article at PJM awhile ago saying that the Palin pick was reminiscent of the plot of The Producers.

Posted by: rickl at April 18, 2014 10:53 AM (zoehZ)

135 I was against nominating him because of the Romneycare connection, but
my point still stands: to call him the same as obama is absurd
***
So Romney and Obama agree that the size and scope of government needs to be increased, that the constitution should not be a check on the government, and that government makes better decisions then individuals.

How again are they not on the same side?

I agree they are not the same personally. Romney is every thing a liberal *should* be based on their stated moral views.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:53 AM (78TbK)

136 I say this because no matter what polls or demographics you look at the
majority of the electorate votes liberal/leftist. There's a number of
reasons for that and there aren't any of them that can reasonably be
changed by rhetoric or persuasion.


Moar Free Shit always wins.



Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:53 AM (d0Dmj)

137 So Mitt is going around endorsing people who endorsed him?

Cocksucker.

Why do we tolerate this sort of thing?

Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 10:53 AM (u2a4R)

138 Also, Republicans will not win unless they nominate someone who can change minds and has broad appeal.

Changing minds is key. Republicans have a bad track record of nominating candidates with the intent of making a broad appeal. Did Sarah Palin flip Democrat women? Not really. Did Alan Keyes bring black voters to the GOP in Illinois? That was the saddest, lamest, stunt-casting for a candidate I've ever seen.

Posted by: danieljeyn at April 18, 2014 10:53 AM (E2iQw)

139 127. "In any event, that doesn't make sense. If the electorate is looking for a
conservative, why would they elect Obama president twice?"


***

Just spit ballin' here but some combination of being lied to by a corrupt media, IRS repression of political opposition, campaign finance violations (e.g., turning off credit card security tools), and voter fraud might have had something to do with it.


Posted by: Ralphie at April 18, 2014 10:54 AM (YBusZ)

140 o Romney and Obama agree that the size and scope of government needs to be increased, that the constitution should not be a check on the government, and that government makes better decisions then individuals.

How again are they not on the same side?


I don't take your statement as being anywhere near accurate. So there is no point in reponding

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 18, 2014 10:55 AM (t3UFN)

141 Was JFK popular, or a cheater who won through fraud?



I'm sure a guy who cheats on his wife is above-board in all his other dealings.



Daddy was a bootlegger. Nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 10:55 AM (d0Dmj)

142 The GOP is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

Posted by: eman at April 18, 2014 10:55 AM (AO9UG)

143 @61: Are you sure about that? I realize that a lot
of conservatives don't consider McCain or Romney to be conservatives.
But liberals and Democrats do.

In any event, that doesn't make
sense. If the electorate is looking for a conservative, why would they
elect Obama president twice?


Posted by: Joshua at April 18, 2014 10:50 AM (oCZ4e)

*************************
I was an election judge in heavily Republican precinct in 2008. There were about 2200 total votes, which went about 1400-800 R-D. McCain got roughly 300 fewer votes than the other R candidates (but Obama didn't do any better than the other D's). What that means is that there were 300 of 1400 Republican voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain.It didn't make a difference -- he carried the state anyway -- but I could see that in some states, on the margin, he may have lost because people who would otherwise vote R didn't vote for him.
And I've brought up before, and been pooh-poohed for it, that millions of evangelicals who would otherwise have voted R would not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. They didn't come and vote for the othr R's, they just stayed home in 2012.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 10:55 AM (HubSo)

144 He lost, for better or worse. But "ass kicked"? Really?

Posted by: @ParisParamus at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (CkjRf)

145 Let's bring back Mr. 999 and Moon Base Noot.

Winning strategy!

Posted by: GOP at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (thLL8)

146 @ 120 - "You are presuming that the Republican leadership wants an energized base that will elect them AND push for the sort of policies Paul and Cruz support.If you instead presume that they do NOT want those sort of policies their actions become MUCH more explicable."


Exactly. The GOP-E types don't really want to win elections. They LIKE the policies put into place by the Democrats, because most of the GOP-E-ers are culturally not that dissimilar to those running the Democrat Party. Think about it - both groups are largely K-street types, live in places like the Acela Corridor, California's Gold Coast, etc. They all vacation in Aspen and Aruba. They both think guns and the people who own them are icky. Both use religion as a facade, but don't *actually* have any interest in it.

As a result, the GOP-E is perfectly happy to see more social programs, more abortion, more gay tyranny, fewer guns, more illegal immigrants mowing their lawns, etc. etc. etc. They get all those things with the Democrats. If actual conservative Republicans won, all that would be threatened. If GOP-E-ers act like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, Mike Lee, and the rest are threats to their way of life, it's because they ARE, or are at least perceived to be. So better to elect Democrats than conservative Republicans, in the eyes of the money-boy types who run the GOP.

Besides, they also like being the permanent minority party. That way they can rake in donationsby scaring the base about "what the Democrats are doing" without ever actually having to do anything about it.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (YYJjz)

147 134 rickl

The horror McCain's campaign showed whenever she articulated conservative principles and goals (which energized the voters) leads me to suspect the author is correct. What made them think an *actual* maverick would be grateful and meek I can't imagine.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (GDulk)

148
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (Dv34P)

149 Posted by: Reginald Denny at April 18, 2014 10:27 AM (zw+pb)

Reginald Denny was the trucker dragged out of his rig and literally had a concrete block dropped on his head.

You're thinking of Rodney King. Who finally become one with Gaia in 2012.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Waiting For SMODOT) at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (JS0vr)

150 @97 "I think Palin was a net help to McCain, not that anyone could really pull that lame candidate's ass over the finish line. He was finished when he confessed that he didn't know much about economic issues and suspended his campaign."


McCain moved ahead in the polls when Palin was added to the ticket, and fell behind after the market collapsed. It's an objective fact that Palin was a "net help." Nobody knows how it would have played out if the market had imploded a few months later.


That being said, it seemed like neither McCain nor Romney really wanted to win. McCain even went so far as to proclaim that nobody should be afraid of Obama becoming president. Huh!?!


There was so much dirt they could have brought up from Obama's past, but they wouldn't do it. Were they afraid of sounding conspiratorial, or racist? Or did they like the whole "1st black president" idea, themselves? (Even though Obama was biracial, not black, and had virtually nothing in common with US blacks).

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 10:56 AM (saDM3)

151 Goldwater's loss had a lot to due with JFK being assassinated a year earlier and LBJ claiming the sympathy vote.

Four years later LBJ was unpopular in his own party.

Posted by: Lucky Pierre at April 18, 2014 10:57 AM (5fSr7)

152 133 Romney sure did a great job picking cronies and the awesome ORCA program.


One thing Mitt did well was convince everybody he had an organization. We should have realized he didn't when Huckabee cleaned his clock in Iowa in 2007.

The sad thing is, I think Mitt believed he had a good organization himself. They bilked him good.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 18, 2014 10:57 AM (uhAkr)

153 Good elevenses, Horde. 12 years here and I still forget that Good Friday isn't a holiday here.

Posted by: Gingy @GingyNorth at April 18, 2014 10:58 AM (N/cFh)

154 136
I say this because no matter what polls or demographics you look at the

majority of the electorate votes liberal/leftist. There's a number of

reasons for that and there aren't any of them that can reasonably be

changed by rhetoric or persuasion.


Moar Free Shit always wins.


***

Good theory except for the fact that the GOP kicks ass in state races for Governor, AG, Secty of State and state legislatures and often with real conservatives.

It's the corrupt media. Period. In any race where the national media is not involved, the playing field is level and so the GOP is quite competitive with a good conservative candidate.

Posted by: Ralphie at April 18, 2014 10:58 AM (YBusZ)

155 Here's the Steyn free speech UK Spectator column hot-linked in my sock. It still works for me using Pale Moon as my browser...

Posted by: andycanuck at April 18, 2014 10:58 AM (hn5v5)

156 : Are you sure about that? I realize that a lot of conservatives don't
consider McCain or Romney to be conservatives. But liberals and
Democrats do.
***
In any event, that doesn't make sense. If the
electorate is looking for a conservative, why would they elect Obama
president twice?

Liberals call everyone to their right "far right wing extremists".

Let's look at the elections since Goldwater...

68 Nixon seen as conservative (he wasn't but...)
72 Nixon seen as conservative (he wasn't but...)
76 Ford seen as moderate
80 Reagan seen as right wing
84 Reagan seen as far right wing
88 Bush 41 seen as right wing
92 Bush 41 seen as moderate/liberal (taxes)
96 Dole seen as moderate (taxes collector of the welfare state)
00 Bush 43 seen as moderate/conservative
04 Bush 43 seen as right wing (he wasn't but...)
08 McCain seen as moderate (global warming and Amnesty for the loss!)
12 Romney seen as moderate (Romneycare for the loss!)

Now how many of those seen as conservative at the time of the election lost?

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:59 AM (78TbK)

157 George Bush is too quiet, if you ask me. He's useless.



And if he gave a damn about his country he'd speak up. ..loudly.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 10:19 AM (Dv34P)

^^^ THIS ^^^
I understand the tradition of former U.S. Presidents not criticizing the current U.S. President but Bill Clinton violated that tradition repeatedly during G.W.'s administration and there have been enormous abuses of power level by the current administration against political opponents.

Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop posting at work at April 18, 2014 10:59 AM (T6MoX)

158
129 -

Something interesting I heard recently, about the famous photograph of Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when his head is down, looking like he is contemplating the weight of the decisions he must make.

I believe the photographer died not too long ago, and when he had been asked about it, he rather matter-of-factly stated the reason Kennedy is seen that way in the photo is because he was in so much physical pain.

It got sold as showing him being a deep thinker, when really he was just thinking about when he could get his next bj and/or injection of pain meds.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 11:00 AM (TOk1P)

159 They both think guns and the people who own them are icky.

Hey, I carried a shotgun at CPAC! BRARRR!

Posted by: Mitch McConnell at April 18, 2014 11:00 AM (uhAkr)

160 Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 10:38 AM (saDM3)

White Privilege.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Waiting For SMODOT) at April 18, 2014 11:00 AM (JS0vr)

161 That story about the "anti-Jim Demint" leaves me with a very warm feeling about having voted for whoever the Libertarians ran in 2012.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 18, 2014 11:00 AM (L02KD)

162 85
Off topic, but why did the Steyn article disappear? I've been to every link to the spectator UK And it says article not found.

Posted by: Auntie Doodles at April 18, 2014 10:40 AM (IQU7B)


If you are talking about the "free speech" article Ace has a link at 7:57 pm yesterday

Posted by: Vic at April 18, 2014 11:00 AM (T2V/1)

163 154. 136

It helps also that in those off year state elections the Moar Free Shit Army stays home.

Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 11:01 AM (YBusZ)

164 I don't take your statement as being anywhere near accurate. So there is no point in reponding
***
You have a right to your own views, but the facts here are clear and that you do not have a right to dispute them...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 11:01 AM (78TbK)

165 153 Good elevenses, Horde. 12 years here and I still forget that Good Friday isn't a holiday here.
Posted by: Gingy @GingyNorth at April 18, 2014 10:58 AM (N/cFh)

Godless Canucks!

Posted by: Insomniac at April 18, 2014 11:01 AM (DrWcr)

166
Jesus didn't save Canada.

Posted by: Soothie § at April 18, 2014 11:02 AM (Dv34P)

167 143

That has been proven false. We Evangelicals were one of the biggest groups who *did* vote for Romney. It was the squishes who stayed home or voted D. The whole "Ooh he's a Mormon" thing bothered social *liberals* (although I do think it was used much as the race card as a way to shut down debate about his policies).

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 11:02 AM (GDulk)

168 Alf Landon's campaign was an electoral catastrophe that awarded Franklin Roosevelt a powerful legislative majority, increased the liberal ambitions of the New Deal and caused massive distrust of the GOP among poor and ethnic voters. The party has never quite recovered. Dwight Eisenhower was, in part, elected president by undoing Landon’s impression of radicalism. And all of Eisenhower’s domestic achievements involved cleaning up just a small portion of the excesses that Landon’s epic loss enabled.

Posted by: toby928© at April 18, 2014 11:02 AM (QupBk)

169 That story about the "anti-Jim Demint" leaves me with a very warm feeling about having voted for whoever the Libertarians ran in 2012.
Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 18, 2014 11:00 AM (L02KD)

You mean the Jim Demint that endorsed Romney ? That Jim Demint?

Why do we seem to believe somethings reported as accuratebut not other things? We believe what we want to be true.

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 11:03 AM (m2CN7)

170 @ 156 - "Now how many of those seen as conservative at the time of the election lost?"

Now I really have to say, and I think Chi-Town Jerry would agree with me, that this sort of thinking is going to destroy us in 2016. How dare you bring facts into a debate that is already settled as a foregone conclusion?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 11:03 AM (YYJjz)

171 I don't know about the characterization of the Romney picks, because I have one counterexample.

For Senate in Iowa, the candidates for the nomination boil down to two frontrunners: Joni Ernst and Mark Jacobs. There are other candidates, of course, but they're not going to win the nomination.

Mark Jacobs is seen as the establishment candidate and even gave money to fellow Goldman Sachser Jon Corzine.

Joni Ernst made the famous castration ad. Of the two, she'd certainly be the anti-establishment choice. Romney endorsed her quite early on.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 18, 2014 11:03 AM (1UzRc)

172 159. 129

In that famous "weight of the world on his shoulders photo" Kennedy was really just reading a newspaper that was on the table in front of him.

Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 11:03 AM (YBusZ)

173 You have a right to your own views, but the facts here are clear and that you do not have a right to dispute them...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 11:01 AM (78TbK)

Your opinions are not fact.

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 11:04 AM (m2CN7)

174
Did someone just rip a ham and bean pants filling fart?
Oh, jwest.

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 11:04 AM (xWW96)

175 >>Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 11:02 AM

It is beyond frustrating that the "Evangelicals handed Mitt the loss" thing keeps being spun.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:04 AM (zDsvJ)

176 @82 "To be fair to Romney, Obama did substantially out raise and out spend him. And that's not counting the gazillions of free in-kind corporate contributions the MSM provided.

That's a head wind that Christ himself would have had a hard time overcoming."



That's a point that can not be overemphasized, plus we still don't know exactly how much voter fraud went on, IRS intimidation, and what other Federal agencies were brought to bear. AT least 3 different agencies showed up at the one Tea Party lady's house - it wasn't just an IRS thing.


Remember Barbara Walters saying how they though "he was the Messiah"? (And how come nobody asked her WTH that was supposed to mean, or why any grown-up would speak that way?) MSM was in propaganda mode like never before, literally burying a huge national news story that would have ended any previous presidency - Benghazi.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 11:04 AM (saDM3)

177 175 >>Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 11:02 AM It is beyond frustrating that the "Evangelicals handed Mitt the loss" thing keeps being spun.
Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:04 AM (zDsvJ)

It's part of Teh Narrative™ that Evangelical Christians are bigots.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 18, 2014 11:05 AM (DrWcr)

178 @ 169 - "You mean the Jim Demint that endorsed Romney ? That Jim Demint?"

So what you're saying is that Romney is an ungrateful bastard, right?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 18, 2014 11:05 AM (YYJjz)

179 I know, instead of an election let's have a spelling contest.

Posted by: Doc Holiday at April 18, 2014 11:06 AM (T2V/1)

180 I think Palin was a net help to McCain, not that
anyone could really pull that lame candidate's ass over the finish line.
He was finished when he confessed that he didn't know much about
economic issues and suspended his campaign.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 10:44 AM
=====
McCain's deference to Bush and his voluntary campaign suspension was the perfect setup for the MSM-Dem machine to paint McCain as Bush III. IOW, he was no longer "The Maverick" but a conventional pol. Plus, McCain-Feingold.

Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign appearances routinely drew 2-3 times the crowds that attended Johnny Mac's stops. And she got a lot more press.

If she wants the job, Palin will be the 2016 Republican nominee for the presidency.

Posted by: mrp at April 18, 2014 11:06 AM (JBggj)

181 It's part of Teh Narrative™ that Evangelical Christians are bigots.
Posted by: Insomniac at April 18, 2014 11:05 AM (DrWcr)

Is Huckabee a Evangelical Christian? You want to revisit his take on Mormonism?

Posted by: polynikes at April 18, 2014 11:06 AM (m2CN7)

182 It's almost as if the same crowd that objects to conservatives criticizing liberal Republicans is perfectly happy to see social conservatives pushed out of the GOP.

Nah, couldn't be!

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:07 AM (zDsvJ)

183 Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 10:55 AM (HubSo)

Those Evangelicals might not have voted for Romney for other reasons than his religion.

He was the instigator of the pilot program that Obamacare mimics.

He was pro choice for a long time and then switched.

He's not a strong 2A supporter and he's a bit wishy washy in a few other places. All of his positions seemed to derive from whatever his advisers thought were the best to take.

Like his current enthusiasm for AGW.

I didn't trust him, I trust him less now.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Waiting For SMODOT) at April 18, 2014 11:07 AM (JS0vr)

184 I know, instead of an election let's have a spelling contest.


Vote fer me. I spel reel gud. Huked on fonics werked fer me!

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2014 11:07 AM (d0Dmj)

185 If she wants the job, Palin will be the 2016 Republican nominee for the presidency.

Be careful. Not everybody will understand that you're joking.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 18, 2014 11:08 AM (SY2Kh)

186 Presidential campaign rival smears political rival.

News at 11.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:08 AM (zDsvJ)

187 Rick Perry second look?

Posted by: Rick Santorum at April 18, 2014 11:08 AM (thLL8)

188 177

And I'm very tired of getting it from "our" side.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 11:08 AM (GDulk)

189 @ 182 - "It's almost as if the same crowd that objects to conservatives criticizing liberal Republicans is perfectly happy to see social conservatives pushed out of the GOP."


Well, you have to admit, if the GOP dumped the SoCons and Evangelicals, they'd have millions of gay voters flocking to them, right?

Posted by: J. Random FisCon at April 18, 2014 11:09 AM (YYJjz)

190 I swear I am internet gay for DrewM - I would tap my internet shoe at him in an internet airport

Posted by: seaniep at April 18, 2014 11:09 AM (mHol2)

191 @119 "Even assuming the possibility of malware. Why in the fuck would you heavily rely on a never before used in a real election GOTV program? Basically abandoning the traditional methods of GOTV for it."


That's a bit like asking some people why they don't still keep a land line with their phone. Or a horse, for that matter, in case their car breaks down.


But point taken. It would have been prudent, given that it was the maiden voyage for the party. Still, when it's a heck of a lot easier and cheaper to do it the new way, and you don't have unlimited funds, I can see the temptation. Plus, it's not like we're talking about national defense, or some other life-and-death thing (at least not directly).

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 11:09 AM (saDM3)

192 174
Did someone just rip a ham and bean pants filling fart?
Oh, jwest.

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 11:04 AM (xWW96)


It looks like a fine, sunny day for you to go fuck yourself, maddogg.

Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R)

193 new one with fresh blood

Posted by: Vic at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (T2V/1)

194 That's a bit like asking some people why they don't still keep a land line with their phone. Or a horse, for that matter, in case their car breaks down

Would you have ditched your landline the first day you got a cell phone?

Posted by: buzzion at April 18, 2014 11:11 AM (LI48c)

195 t looks like a fine, sunny day for you to go fuck yourself, maddogg.

Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R) It's cloudy here Jwest, so howsabout you bite my ass?

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 11:11 AM (xWW96)

196
172 -

That's the one. The photographer is quoted as saying something like, he was in too much pain to hold himself up, which is why his hands are planted on the desk.

But they have sold that lie for 50+ years now, of the tired young President, having to make all those hard decisions.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 18, 2014 11:11 AM (TOk1P)

197 The country has changed. 30 years of importing socialist voters from other countries coupled with a media and educations system that preaches leftism has done it!

These high minded discussions we have about the role of government and liberty and economics are POINTLESS! America doesn't care about any of that. They care about SCANDAL on ABC and how to get FREE SHIT!

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2014 11:12 AM (COpZ4)

198 Nixon was almost entirely a Rockefeller platform, Kissinger, Moynihan, EPA, price controls, quotas the whole shebang,

I hear this all the time, and it's not incorrect, but we tend to identify the horrendous, out of control, totalitarian EPA we have now with the reality of the 1970s. Back then we needed an EPA, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, for God's sake, and this SNL commercial parody for Swill(http://tinyurl.com/7oepn8d) was funny because it was damn near true. The problem is that once the EPA cleaned things up, it didn't say "Job well done" and go away, it metastasized into the disaster we have today (which is why all Federal agencies should have to be proactively reauthorized every 5 years).

Posted by: Weirddave at April 18, 2014 11:12 AM (N/cFh)

199 181

Huckabee is an individual who happens to have a confli t of interest due to wanting the same job as Romney. He doesn't speak for Evangelicals because *we* are individuals as well.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 11:13 AM (GDulk)

200 Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R) It's cloudy here Jwest, so howsabout you bite my ass?

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 11:11 AM (xWW96)


That's the difference between us. It will always be sunny wherever I am and always be cloudy over you.

Embrace the suck that is your life.

Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:14 AM (u2a4R)

201 I have a weak spot for Nixon simply b/c he's the first POTUS candidate for whom I worked.

That said, I was appalled to discover that the educational privacy laws (aka FERPA) were put in place in '74 and that the bill sponsor was a Republican.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:14 AM (zDsvJ)

202 You are presuming that the Republican leadership
wants an energized base that will elect them AND push for the sort of
policies Paul and Cruz support.

If you instead presume that they do NOT want those sort of policies their actions become MUCH more explicable.


Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 10:49 AM (78TbK)
Yes, GOP rather come in second than win and have to reduce government.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at April 18, 2014 11:14 AM (AWmfW)

203 It looks like a fine, sunny day for you to go fuck yourself, maddogg.
Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R)

Stay classy, hero.

Posted by: troyriser at April 18, 2014 11:15 AM (2jF2B)

204 hat's the difference between us. It will always be sunny wherever I am and always be cloudy over you.

Embrace the suck that is your life.Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:14 AM (u2a4R) Fucking rinos like YOU are the cloud over the whole country. YOU are the suck. Embrace you? I would prefer to flush you.

Posted by: maddogg at April 18, 2014 11:15 AM (xWW96)

205 @176 Benghazi?

Heck, Jeremiah Wright.

Imagine what this media would do to the GOP candidate with the right-wing equivalent of Jeremiah Wright in his or her closet?

Had the Jeremiah Wright story broken two weeks in advance of the Iowa caucus, Obama would never have seen New Hampshire.

As it was, after the Wright story broke, Obama never a won another large state primary or a caucus. But by then he had enough super delegates to survive it and coast into the nomination on the momentum he had built up.

The media has made sure the usual laws of political physics never apply to Obama.

Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 11:15 AM (YBusZ)

206 Spot on, Drew. These jackass GOP pseudo intellectuals are a bad, or worse, than Democrats. Let's ignore all elections and history except for one we can distort to make our vapid points.

Here's the GOP record:

G.H.W Bush: Lost to Clinton, a corrupt sexual deviant and rapist who, in addition to the multiple sex crime investigations, was embroiled in ongoing fraud, money laundering, real estate and other criminal investigations. But, let's blame Ross Perot, right? Fuck that. Ross Perot (and no one else) "stole" votes from anyone. Bush didn't earn them. Bush's failures, double talk, and liberalism CREATED the Perot candidacy.

G.W. Bush: Lost popular vote to Gore. Squeaked by against John F'ing Kerry. With the exception of his initial 9/11 leadership, had a generally impotent Presidency because liberals in Congress (and the media) destroyed him.

John McCain: Lost to a guy who's never had a real, full time job in his life, never completed a term in any elected office, has a law degree by no law license (because it was revoked), and who's house was funded by a convicted felon, career was launched and mentored by a domestic terrorist (a real one, that actually bombed people and not middle aged people who hold up signs at peaceful protests in support of limited government), attended a racist church for 20 years, and called his white grandmother a "typical white person" while trying to distance himself from his racist church.

Mitt Romney: Lost to McCain in 2008. Lost to the same guy McCain lost to (Wow! Who'd a thunk it?), in spite of the fact that TFG now had a 3 year record of laziness, incompetence, and failure that everyone predicted, the economy was in the shitter (remember that whole "no incumbent has ever won reelection with XX% unemployment", blah, blah, blah?) For fuck sake, they might as well have run McCain again, instead of the guy that LOST to McCain.

Never mind all losses in the Senate, House, etc. since Goldwater.

Posted by: Damiano at April 18, 2014 11:16 AM (j0wOO)

207 >>Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, assault Hobbit at April 18, 2014 11:13 AM

Exactly.

I'll add that there was a rumor floating around in LDS circles very early in the campaign cycle (ie: prior to the "three agencies" gaffe) that Perry was anti-Mormon. I had many lengthy convos with neighbors about this, reassuring them that I could find no evidence that Perry held such unseemly beliefs. But it was embedded firmly in the psyche here. So despite the fact that many of my neighbors thought Mitt was too liberal, they were bound to back him.

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:17 AM (zDsvJ)

208 192 jwest at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R)

speaking of "go fuck yourself" how's it hanging Andre Johnson?

Posted by: sven10077 at April 18, 2014 11:18 AM (TE35l)

209 It looks like a fine, sunny day for you to go fuck yourself, maddogg. Posted by: jwest at April 18, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R)
You are my hero. I mean that. My. Hero. Nobody makes a more articulate or cogent argument than you do.

Posted by: J. Random FisCon at April 18, 2014 11:18 AM (YYJjz)

210 Is someone seriously advocating that new software not be thoroughly tested before launch?

Posted by: Y-not at April 18, 2014 11:19 AM (zDsvJ)

211 196. 172
159. 129

Plus, that JFK photo was taken in early 1961, not during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962.

If it glorifies a Democrat, you can count on it being a lie.

Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 11:19 AM (YBusZ)

212 203 troyriser at April 18, 2014 11:15 AM (2jF2B)

JWest the 7-up of Morons....

never had it, never will

Posted by: sven10077 at April 18, 2014 11:20 AM (TE35l)

213 B-You can say, "but he was right about Obama". Yes and so was everyone on this blog. It's not a really impressive thing.

How can you say that, Romney was dead wrong about Obama and that was the crux of losing. Romney thinks, or at least ran his campaign as if, Obama is a good man in over his head. That's bullshit, Obama is a bad actor determined to ruin this country, and doing a great job of that task.

Posted by: motion view (@motionview) at April 18, 2014 11:21 AM (qXMhb)

214 206. Try a little math and logical reasoning, wizard. In 1992,

Clinton - 43 %

Bush - 37.5 %

Perot - 18.9%

You seriously think those people pulling the lever for Perot would have pulled the lever for Clinton or stayed home if Perot had not been on the ballot?

Baloney. Every Perot vote was a vote lost to Bush. Period.


Posted by: Roscoe at April 18, 2014 11:23 AM (YBusZ)

215 214 Roscoe at April 18, 2014 11:23 AM (YBusZ)

at the time I begged and plead with the Perotsites to keep Beijing Billy out of office....

Now I am more ambivalent.

The party was too liberal and duplicitous for THEM in 1996, it is now passing me by in 2014.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 18, 2014 11:25 AM (TE35l)

216 @117 "Nah, I think it was poor design/execution, not sabotage.

The folks around here, big whigs in LDS circles who made large donations to Mitt, were appalled by the team Mitt assembled. A lot of them were chosen based on connections rather than skills."


This sort of thing is exactly why it's easy to point fingers at Mitt's team, but it didn't sound to me like the symptoms match that of a system that was simply poorly designed. There's also the fact that it was put together on a very short timeline.


But a badly-designed system (and this one was supposedly stress-tested, although that could be BS) would just be slow, or have widespread errors, wouldn't it? The way I remember it, passwords were suddenly invalid at just the right time, and it was impossible to do practically ANYTHING.


Also, software geeks can be rabidly liberal. Besides the malware possibility, there could have been an Obamaphile on the team, sabotaging it.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 11:26 AM (saDM3)

217
You can say, "but he was right about Obama". Yes and so was everyone on this blog. It's not a really impressive thing.

I object, because it's devastating to my case!

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at April 18, 2014 11:28 AM (1hM1d)

218 Look, I heard the jokes about the Mormon versus the Muslim, and about how many First Ladies were there going to be. I know evangelicals who stayed home in 2012 and I know churches that scrupulously stayed out of politics in 2012, where they didn't generally before or after. True, there was also weird anti-Mormon bigotry on the left ("magic underwear" for example), but they weren't potential Romney voters anyway. Romney was a good man and would have been light years better than JEF, but he was doomed by Romneycare, his religion, the media, and voter fraud.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 11:29 AM (HubSo)

219 >>>... Romney was dead wrong about Obama and that was the crux of losing. Romney thinks, or at least ran his campaign as if, Obama is a good man in over his head.

Exactly.

Romney Campaign: Obama's not wrong or bad, he's just misunderstood.

Democrats/ Media/ etc.: RACIST!!! WAR ON WOMEN!!! BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN!!! HE WANTS TO KILL BIG BIRD!!! AND THROW GRANDMA OFF A CLIFF AFTER MAKING HER EAT DOG FOOD!!! MAGIC UNDERWEAR CULTIST WHO SUPPORTS POLYGAMY!!! PAYS NO TAXES!!! HIDDEN OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS!!! OMG!!!

Posted by: Damiano at April 18, 2014 11:30 AM (j0wOO)

220 210 "Is someone seriously advocating that new software not be thoroughly tested before launch?"


Um, not that I heard.


But "thoroughly" is a loaded term. Testing absolutely everything is impossible; testing anything is expensive, difficult and time-consuming. Software is generally released with the expectation of bugs existing, and being reduced in future releases. Generally, you expect something far better than the Obamacare site.


The ORCA system had worse symptoms than Obamacare, despite being far less complex. That's what leads me to suggest malware as a possibility.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 18, 2014 11:34 AM (saDM3)

221 Your opinions are not fact.
***
Indeed they are not. But we are actually talking about Romney's record, which, of course, is a series of facts not my opinions.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2014 11:41 AM (78TbK)

222 I'm late to the thread, but I'm with Polliwog; the Big Conservative States in the South all voted for Romney. The purple states are the ones we need to look at and analyze for the reasons for the loss. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, maybe even Virginia. Maybe there's a universe out there where those are all evangelical strongholds, I dunno.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 18, 2014 11:45 AM (ClWQc)

223 Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 11:29 AM (HubSo)

No one can say how well or how much better Romney would be than Obama.

I believe they wouldn't repeal Obama care. I believe they would've failed in statesmanship around the world.

I can only think that Amnesty would've probably passed sooner and that possibly 2A laws would've become enacted.

I think Romney would've been an outright failure due to his leftward lean and illegal sympathies. The medical insurance problems might be the same also because he would shift the dates like Obama has out of compassion but they still wouldn't have passed a repeal vote.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Waiting For SMODOT) at April 18, 2014 11:46 AM (JS0vr)

224 I guess I'll go see if there's a new thread.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at April 18, 2014 11:50 AM (ClWQc)

225 To be more accurate, Romney got his ass kicked in TWO elections (1st by McLame in 2008, for crying out loud!). His entire electoral record BEFORE 2012 was 1-for-3. .333 is great for a baseball hitter, but politics...come on.

I admire Mitt as a businessman and person, but DrewM. is truly on the money in this critique.

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at April 18, 2014 12:02 PM (FWwQD)

226
I was told if I voted for Goldwater, the United States would be tie up in an Asian war we could not win and there would be half a million Americans dying in this stupid war. I didn't believe them. I voted for Goldwater. I guess I was wrong and they were right.

Posted by: burt at April 18, 2014 12:06 PM (1+kJ5)

227 That Romney would be better than Obama is a useless metric. So would just about any jackass off the street. Personally, I'd give the random jackass a better chance of winning simply because I know for a fact what a terrible candidate Romney is.-DrewM

Drew, don't take this the wrong way.......But, I have a man crush on you. I love your straight to the heart of the matter style. Have yourself a wonderful weekend.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 18, 2014 12:13 PM (HVff2)

228 Forget about whether or not the country would've been better with Goldwater as president, that argument is irrelevant.

Posted by: Jason at April 18, 2014 12:24 PM (jqcVe)

229 As long as you fight your friends you don't have the strength to fight your enemies.

This one problem is keeping us from winning elections.

Posted by: petunia at April 18, 2014 12:32 PM (DAcBA)

230 Romney may have been a "terrible candidate," I guess. But he was better than any of the other ass clowns who ran that year. Does anyone think Rick Santorum would have fared better? Come on.

Posted by: John at April 18, 2014 12:43 PM (+piKT)

231 229
As long as you fight your friends you don't have the strength to fight your enemies.



This one problem is keeping us from winning elections.

Posted by: petunia at April 18, 2014 12:32 PM (DAcBA)

^^^this

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 12:45 PM (HubSo)

232 222 That's exactly the point. The fact that he was a Mormon -- and not just a MINO like Harry Reid, but a full-fledged stakeholder and elder -- didn't matter in the deep red states, because the marginal evangelical vote didn't matter. But it DID matter in Pennsylvania ("Alabama with two big cities on either end"), Ohio, Florida, and Virginia that the evangelicals didn't show up for him. Do you really think those four states, in particular, don't have strong evangelical Christian communities? Of course they do. Enough to make a difference.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 18, 2014 12:56 PM (HubSo)

233 Goldwater in ´64 has *nothing* to do with McLame and Romney's losses.

Neither of them went after Obozo half as hard as he went after them. For instance - not once did McLame ever call Obozo a "Liberal", or point out his leftist voting record. They both allowed his fraudulent campaign to portray him as someone he wasn't - and didn't begin to define him for what he had done.

You cannot legitimately lay the blame for their failings at Goldwater's feet.

Posted by: tlk428 at April 18, 2014 02:46 PM (0c9yp)

234 Goldwater was a non-religious fiscal conservative.

It's not a surprise that the RINOs in the Republican Party hate him.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 18, 2014 02:53 PM (c6N69)

235 Caesar North: Being behind the pulpit, rather than sitting in the pews, is a big strike against a politician in the US.

( with the noted exception of black preachers, for historical reasons ... Blacks had to quietly politic in the back of black churches to avoid being lynched by the KKK )

Posted by: Kristophr at April 18, 2014 03:00 PM (c6N69)

236 Wow, just like Obama in reverse. Only the vetted conservatives need speak, everybody else just shut up and follow.

Posted by: Tennyson at April 18, 2014 05:16 PM (307Vv)

237 "Romney may have been a "terrible candidate," I guess. But he was better than any of the other ass clowns who ran that year. Does anyone think Rick Santorum would have fared better? Come on."

Oh, brother: the lame if-not-Romney-than-who argument again. I would answer that by pointing out that Santorum won his House seat two times and his Senate seat two more times - a lot more electoral victories than Romney has managed. If Santorum was the crappy candidate that you seem to believe he was, then what does that say about Romney?

Posted by: Banned by KBTX at April 19, 2014 02:00 AM (g95Ma)

238 _____________________________________

Drew,

Allow me to address some points you made.

Your point A is False.
Romney turned out to be an excellent candidate. He drew massive crowds (much bigger than Obama's) at his speaking events. He kicked Obama's ass in the first debate in a way that has NEVER happened in the history of presidential politics. Not just in that debate, but throughout the campaign Romney took Obama to the woodshed - but without ever being personally disrespectful.
I will say that the Romney campaign's "techno" division rather sucked - and that Romney himself is ultimately responsible for making sure that all aspects of his campaign are in good working order. Still, that exception to his _campaign organization_ is a far cry from declaring Romney a terrible candidate.
I personally think that Rick Santorum would have made a better candidate. - But his campaign's organization and general potency was unfortunately much weaker than Romney's. All the other competitive candidates (especially Gingrich) were horribly flawed at a personal level and would have been torn to shreds in a general election. Romney was far and away the best we had available _at the time_. Complaining about him now is pointless.

Your point B is true. But that doesn't really say anything bad about Romney, now does it?

More in next comment....




Posted by: _Dave_ at April 19, 2014 02:32 PM (u9E/o)

239 _______________________________

Drew,

Your point C is also true.
Quite frankly, if the hurricane had either not happened or had turned out to be inconsequential, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Romney would have continued to build his momentum from the debates and gone on to beat Obama.

But so what? That's simply not what happened. History happened. And to quote Brit Hume (who was probably quoting someone else), history never makes us privy to its alternatives.

Your point D is false and without foundation.
I had severe reservations against Romney when he was seeking the nomination in 08'. It seemed to me that Romney was willing to make "subtle" shifts in his positions so as to adopt political platforms of convenience. - And I really didn't trust him.
Consequently, I was relieved when he quit the race.
However, I did love his 08 primary concession speech. An unmotivated sincerity rang out that made me realize there was more to him. It made me realize he had profound integrity.
And to then watch him campaign tirelessly for McCain - even after the snide (though accurate) attacks McCain leveled at Romney during one of the debates.
This was OBVIOUSLY a good man of real substance.

Fast forward to Romney's bid in 2012. He had _learned_ from his 08 bid.
His positions were not only consistent (with none of the several convenient shifts and pivots he had made in his prior bid); he had also clearly taken the time to learn about and _become a part of_ the conservative movement. He spoke to conservative issues with depth and detail - moreover, he did so with consistency.

I don't believe Romney was much of a conservative in 08. But I believe that after he was first rejected from the nomination that he took the time to study conservative philosophy, saw its value, and that he _chose_ to adopt it.
To be sure, you can point to NOTHING in the 2012 campaign that indicates a significant shift or pivot in his basic approach to conservative governing philosophy. And unlike in 08, Romney was consistent throughout the campaign.

But wait, there's more...




Posted by: _Dave_ at April 19, 2014 02:56 PM (u9E/o)

240 _______________________________

Drew,

You point out that after Bush left office, he (appropriately) has stayed out of commenting on politics and governance. (I believe that's but one of the many things that indicates Bush's truly great character. Too bad his policies ended up hedging toward big government Republicanism.) You then say that by comparison, Romney is low for speaking out in public life sense losing the election.
With all due respect, Drew, that doesn't follow.
Bush served as president, and he can't serve again. Having wielded such power and having enjoyed a position of inside information, he does not want to disadvantage his successor who must now also serve the country in the highest capacity. Bush has that in common with Obama - they're both presidents.
Romney needn't have such concerns. He's actually in the perfect position to criticize. - He was the nation's alternative. He actually has a _duty_ to criticize - which, ironically, is opposite to Bush's duty.
So context of having been president combined with who is president is crucial for understanding the rhetorical lines of appropriateness.

For instance, consider how absurd, obnoxious, and uncalled for it would be for you to suggest that Sarah Palin should shut up.




Posted by: _Dave_ at April 19, 2014 03:14 PM (u9E/o)

241 _______________________________

Drew,

Finally, I would like to point out that as an ardent Romney supporter, I would prefer that he not seek the nomination again. It's certainly his right to do so, and I'd certainly vote for him again if he is again the nominee.
But in _modern_ times, I believe the mantle of loser is an extremely difficult one to shake. Branding through advertising is a powerful thing, and I have doubts that Romney could overcome it. (Incidentally, that was one of the reservations I had about Santorum having lost his last big election in Pennsylvania.)

Also, there have been some things that Romney has spoken out about since the election for which I flatly disagree with him on. (Criticizing Obama is not one of those things. - Again, he has an important duty to fulfill here.)
It's his right to have these misguided opinions and to share them with the public.Disdaining him for doing so... well, I'd like to think of a polite way to say this. - Especially since I know that you are a fellow conservative. Disdaining Romney and his supporters for Romney daring to speak his political opinions out loud sounds like a liberal tactic. Liberals don't want to have an argument. They just want the opposition to shut up.
I think you can do better than that, Drew. I think you can substantively take Romney to task without suggesting he's wrong for even daring to speak at all.


For what it's worth, currently I don't see any good choices for GOP nominee.
I hope that changes.

I had liked my former governor Bob McDonnell. But now he looks hopelessly tainted.
I still believe that Sarah Palin would make a good president. But even more so in her case, I fear the branding poses a big obstacle regarding electability.

I guess we'll just have to wait, see, and hope.



Posted by: _Dave_ at April 19, 2014 03:34 PM (u9E/o)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0328 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0079 seconds, 250 records returned.
Page size 154 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