Skip to comments.Mitt Romney: How to Lose the Most Important Election of our Time by not Really Trying
Posted on 09/22/2012 8:28:48 AM PDT by Stepan12
Mitt Romney is losing the most important election of our lifetime. Dont be deceived by the polls that show him within the margin of error. Dont put your faith in last minute media-buys from the campaigns gargantuan war chest.
Dont expect the debates to turn things around. The president may not be an electrifying speaker, but he knows how to demagogue. His message will be: I love the middle class; Mitt Romney wants tax cuts for millionaires and eats children.
And, dont count on the fact that public opinion is against Obama on almost every significant issue. (At no time since its passage has less than a majority favored repeal of Obamacare.)
The stars should be perfectly aligned for a Republican blowout this year. The economy is in the dumpster deficits to dwarf anything weve seen in the past, the highest sustained unemployment since the Great Depression, anemic growth, huge tax hikes just around the corner, consumer prices through the ceiling and the man responsible for it all is coasting to a second term.
The Governor, bless his bland little heart, is the worst candidate the GOP has fielded since Viagra Bob Dole so bad he makes John McCain look like Harry Truman on his 1948 Whistle Stop Tour.
Almost every national poll shows Romney behind by 1 to 8 points Rasmussen (Obama 47%, Romney 45%) Gallup (47% to 46%), Washington Post (52% to 44%), AP (47% to 46%) and Pew Research (51% to 43%).
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...
WOW , every story being posted is crapping on Romney ,why not just change the United States to Obama States now and get it over with LOL
It’s not just Romney’s fault. America has some die hard morons who just love Obama. They may not be as vocal about as they were four years ago but they are still out there and will vote for Obastard again.
We also have the most dishonest media ever. The kind of press that Stalin would be proud of.
A typical shoot your own side in the back instead of using your forum to attack the Leftist Media machine from another faux conservative media clown
Yep and rather then help get the Conservative message out to counteract the Leftist media people like this author spend all their time shooting their own in the back.
And then they wonder why their side always loses.
Early voting starts in TN on Oct 17, 25 days from now...
Other states also have early voting...
Does Willard intend to spend his multi million dollar war chest on ads in the next 3 1/2 weeks ???
Do you ever intend to attack Obama on anything?
Don Feder is a true Conservative; not a faux conservative.
I said I hope he is wrong; however, my family has known him for decades and I feel I cannot just ignore him.
And yes it would be better to have Sarah, Herman, or Al West.
Unfortunately, we have what we have. And luckily the Dems have even worse.
However, with the release of the 47% tape, maybe Romney does have a clue.
Aha, beating Romney machine is in full run. I have never heard of Don Fader, but if he is a conservative, he’s parroting the news meme, Romney will fail.
This is not a good article, it is not even productive for the conservative cause. What is Don trying to achieve?
Any possible change from the Romney camp is not going to come about from the words of Don Fader.
Why not ask Newt to prep Mittens for the debates? Time to call Obama out for the loser that he is.
You’d never catch the Dems doing this...they boost up and fight and defend obama with their last dying breath...but this is what “our side” does, day in and day out. Kick Romney when he’s down and double down on him when he’s up. Getting so tired of this garbage.
The conservative pundits are scared spitless because their conservative books, news columns, and radio shows have made them rich. They will be severely punished by Obama in his second term. And who do they blame? Romney, the same candidate they were touting as the “only viable candidate who can win” during the primaries.
Tough luck, boys and girls. Better start thinking of Plan B when the IRS will be calling on you, “encouraging” you to give your “fair share” to Obama’s voters.
Have you forgotten your spanking already ???
I would expect a ‘conservative columnist’ with an experienced background in national politics to be smart enough to see how much the sands have shifted under the media and look into the sampling data of these contrived polls and the voting models they are using based on the 2008 election rather than the 2010 mid term.
I hope our culture is not so completely foul that Romney’s truth telling in the past weeks (47% remarks, embassy remarks) is regarded as a gaffe by the public and not just the smears of our drive by media. If the former is true, we live in a truly insane country :(
Feder or not.... not a great writing this time around... what he seems to be railing against or should be is how to get out the message when the message delivering system is rigged against you. I totally disagree the debates will be meaningless and although I expect the usual bias in questions Mitt will be able to speak direct... he can make his cause here as Americans this time around are concerned and will be watching...
P.S. I have also been saying that since the primaries the party has helped the left, liberals and Democrats beat up on Romney. In fact most here never supported him and swore to never ever vote for him. I see now less of this but that was damaging even back then....
Same thing for Senate in Wisconsin - many voted for Tommy Thompson as "the only one who can beat Tammy Baldwin".
The primaries are over and the roaring tigers have become mewling little kittens hiding under the bed.
And those of us who backed other candidates are left to shake our heads....and quake in our boots over the idea that America could be done for in a mere few weeks.
Really want to argue, as Feder does, that poling based on an assumption that Obama will get a greater voter turn out in 2012 then he did in 2008 is serious?
Yep - Mitt’s bride said it well the other day - this crap has to stop. With sopposed republican/Liberals constantly wringing their litel pudgy hands over all the supposed gaffes and lack of clarity, it’s no wonder our side is bouncing between despair and anger.
Still, the country is in such dire shape I don't see how Hussein gets re-elected. My prediction: Mittens by 4 in the popular vote and around 300 EV.
McCarthyism? The Communist newspaper, "The Daily Worker," coined that term to smear Sen. McCarthy.
No wonder Feder is too gutless to attack the Leftist media machine. He is part of it.
Romney’s lack of fire in the belly gives all conservatives fear. Fear causes a shrinking away, a lack of confidence. The only thing Romney hasn’t done that McCain did, is to say that Obama would be a good president if elected, though Romney does say that Obama is a good man... watch this video, this is what we are all dying to get behind... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GCXHPKhRCVg
Whatever the accuracy of Don Feder's analysis, he is no phony or closet Liberal. Decades ago when I was a kid, I helped put up posters around Boston, supporting the Conservative cause. Posters that Don Feder made.
Don Feder also wrote two books. One of them was featured, interestingly enough, at a JBS meeting I attended (no, I am not a member).
This is so well put, and demonstrably true, but it’s not “politically correct” to say it on this forum, as the tone of most of the comments here indicates.
Considering what is at stake here, conservatives who have an "audience" would do well to amplify Romney's message by doing their own part in spreading the light of liberty.
It reminds me of the answer James Russell Lowell gave to the French historian, Guizot, about how long the American Republic could endure, as related by Dr. Russell Kirk in the following essay, which may be helpful in weighing the importance of this election. The Kirk essay is from the cited book source, but also is available for reprint and distribution here.
Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, enumerated what he called 'the essential principles of our government. . . which ought to shape its Administration.'
He then stated: "These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
When asked by a curious citizen after the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government had been structured by the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin is said to have answered: "...A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."
The extensive Constitutional republic they envisioned, in reality, became a place of liberty and opportunity for countless millions of people from all over the world. Their ideas worked, because they were based on enduring principles which recognized human imperfection and the need to structure a limited government of laws, dependent upon the consent of a people who, themselves, understood the principles.
The Distinctiveness of the American Experiment as Laid Down by the Founding Fathers:
It acknowledged that individual rights are derived from a Creator.
It was based on enduring principles compatible with "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
It recognized human imperfection and that a tendency to abuse power is ever present in the human heart.
It restrained those in power through a written Constitution which carefully divided, balanced, and separated the powers of government and then intricately knitted them back together again through a system of checks and balances.
It left all powers with the people, except those which, by their consent, the people delegated to government and then made provision for their withdrawing that power, if it was abused.
What Has Happened to the Philosophy and Principles Held by the Founding Fathers?
Have we kept faith with their ideas of republican (representative) government and of the virtue which must underlie such an institution? As Andrew Jackson observed: "It is well known that there have always been those amongst us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general government...and...to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution." Such is certainly true in 20th Century America! Not only do the various branches of government seek ways to expand their power by changing the Constitution, but there are well - organized and heavily-funded organizations actively at work to make serious changes in the Founders' system.
Can America Lose Her Freedom?
An examination of the history of civilization reveals that nations have risen, and they have fallen. Governments have been formed, and they have been dissolved. People have become free, and they have fallen into slavery again. Toynbee observed that 19 of the world's 21 significant civilizations disappeared from the face of the earth - not from assault by outside forces, but from deterioration within the society.
Many would contend that America has departed from the intentions of its Founders in a number of significant ways. Others, whose judgments are less categorical, at least would acknowledge that there are valid reasons for such a judgment.
Increasing Centralization of Authority in the National Government
Through liberal judicial interpretations of the necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses, as well as the commerce clause, the national government has gained sufficient power to intrude into virtually all concerns and areas which were originally intended to be within the domain of the states (See: Part V, Federalism). What is more, the courts, through the process of 'selective incorporation,' have used the Fourteenth Amendment to nationalize and apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Various Amendments have also served to weaken the state governments, albeit indirectly. For instance: the Sixteenth Amendment, through its provision for federal income tax, has made the states, to a great extent, dependent on the national government. The Seventeenth Amendment, which changed the Framers' intent as to the manner in which the Senate would he determined, has served to reduce the influence and balance of state interests in the national councils.
Erosion Of Principle Of Separation Of Powers
The Framers believed that it would be the Legislative branch, armed with the most important powers of government, which would pose the greatest danger to the separation of powers. For this reason, they divided the legislature into two houses and strengthened the Executive and judiciary branches. Over time, however, the Congress has delegated much of its authority to the Executive branch or to independent regulatory bodies. On the other hand, the judiciary, which the Founders believed to be the weakest of the branches, has asserted the doctrine of judicial supremacy-that its interpretation of the Constitution is authoritative and binding on the other branches (an idea clearly not held by Jefferson, Madison and others). In addition, the courts have in fact 'legislated' to bring about changes which they contend are mandated by their interpretation of the Constitution (See: Part V, Separation of Powers). These "positive resolutions" on the part of the courts are seen to run counter to the Founders' idea of representative (republican) government, because they represent a usurpation of the legislative function, and ignore the voice and consent of the people through their elected representatives. This bypasses the slow and deliberative amendment process provided by the Constitution for making changes to that document.
Departure From The Basic Values To Which The Founders Subscribed
Although the word "rights" remains an important part of the political and social vocabulary, the perception that individual rights are of divine origin has been largely excluded from public discourse. What was once the very cornerstone of the philosophy of freedom expounded by the Declaration of Independence-that a Creator endowed human beings with rights and the liberty to enjoy those rights - has virtually disappeared from the textbooks of the nation and from the public statements of many leaders. Indeed, rights are now thought of as man-made and emanating from government. As such, the concept of rights not only has been secularized but trivialized as well. After all, what is the authority for such rights? Any self-proclaimed entitlement to special treatment, privilege, status, or benefit conferred by government can, by inference, be withdrawn. Moreover, the modem notion of man-made rights does not embody the natural law injunction that the exercise of a right embodies a corresponding obligation to observe the rights of others, nor does it recognize the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" described by the Declaration of Independence.
In this connection, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights frequently have been interpreted in an arbitrary manner without regard to the tradition or values which they were designed to protect and preserve. For instance, the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been 'interpreted' in a manner not in keeping with Jefferson's idea that the "liberty to worship our Creator" had been "proved by our experience to be its [government's] best support." In this and other areas, rights are upheld quite apart from the Framers' concerns for civil or ordered liberty, or for the ends of government, especially those set forth in the Preamble. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's scathing critique of Western moral values, and those which have gained currency in the United States in particular, drives this point home:
"Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror."
Professor Lino Graglia, a harsh critic of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Bill of Rights, makes much the same point in another context: "The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law-for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the attempt frequently seem not worthwhile...By undermining effective enforcement of the criminal law...the Court has diminished our liberty to walk the streets of our cities with a degree of security".
Destruction Of The Founders' Monetary System Based On A Money With Intrinsic Value
One of the primary concerns of the Founders was the establishment of a sound monetary system which would provide stability and would assure the citizens that government could not manipulate their currency and confiscate their earnings through inflation, a problem with all unbacked paper currencies of the past. By various legislative and judicial actions, United States citizens no longer possess a currency with its own intrinsic value. Unbridled government spending and debt plague the nation. Since the withdrawal of gold coins in 1933, the nation has experienced a cumulative inflation of over 821%.
Loss Of Citizen Understanding Of Constitutional Principles And The Philosophy Underlying Them
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people...said John Adams. And Thomas Jefferson declared: "Whenever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government...The boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them."
Early generations of Americans were taught the principles upon which their nation had developed its Constitution. The Founders believed that the real security for liberty would be a people who could understand those ideas which are necessary to preserve liberty and who could perceive approaching threats to their freedom. For that reason, a primary purpose of the schools was to teach boys and girls to read and write so that they could study the ideas of freedom. A popular textbook for children was entitled "Catechism on the Constitution." Written by Arthur J. Stansbury and published in 1828, it contained questions and answers on the principles of the American political system.
Tocqueville's Democracy In America , written in the 1830's, described America's aggressive process of universal education on the Constitution and the political process:
"It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where the in struction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from the moral education ...." The American citizen, he said, "..will inform you what his rights are and by what means he exercises them .. In the United States, politics are the end and aim of education ... every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution .... it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon .... It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which thought cir culates in the midst of these deserts [wilderness]. I do not think that so much intellectual activity exists in the most enlightened and populous districts of France."
Research shows that, beginning in the early 1900's, the teaching of the philosophy undergirding the Constitution and the principles incorporated in it began to be eliminated from the public schools of America. Consequently, several generations of Americans have not been taught the principles which would enable them to be guardians of their own liberty, and they have not been able to serve as "watchmen on the walls" who could recognize encroachments when they occurred. Even most of the law schools do not train the nation's law students in the philosophical foundations of the Constitution.
It must be remembered that the principles of the Constitution and the philosophy undergirding those principles represent:
The ultimate standard of measure for all government action.
The ultimate protection for the people from the excesses of government.
If the people do not have an understanding of these basic things, then they will be incapable of preserving them.
Without a doubt, those departures from the Framers' intent listed above, and others as well, result in serious questions about the ultimate success of their experiment. We should note, however, that the Framers built well, and the Constitution, despite the buffeting it has taken, is still extremely viable in one crucial respect: namely, the channels for restoration remain open. Nothing - not even Amendments - has altered the distribution of powers or the basic institutional relationships set forth by the Founders. This means, in effect, that the PEOPLE can operate through Congress to bring the system back into line. If the people, through knowledgeable, good judgment, select members of Congress who have the courage to act, the Founders' system can be restored.
A determined Congress, for instance, is more than a match for a judiciary bent upon advancing the doctrine of judicial supremacy and encroaching upon the Legislative prerogatives intended by the Founders. Such a Congress could, as it has done in the past, limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. The Senate could carefully screen presidential nominations to the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, and refuse to con, firm those who support judicial "activism." Or, at the extreme, Congress could impeach and remove those justices who, to use Alexander Hamilton's terminology, habitually exercise "will" (the intended prerogative of the Legislature), not "judgment," in interpreting the Constitution. In sum, Congress is equipped with all the weapons to win any "shoot out" with the Court. In all likelihood, if history serves as any guide, the mere threat of their use would suffice to restore the proper relationships between the branches called for by the separation of powers principle.
Congress also possesses ample means to restore some semblance of balance with respect to state-national relations. Much could be accomplished simply through legislation, or through a more discreet use of congressional powers to allow the states greater latitude. Congress could, probably through legislation (or amendment, if need be), assert the sole authority to enforce the "due process" and "equal protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation, thereby depriving the courts of the means to impose their will upon the states. This corrective measure would, by itself, go a long way toward restoring vitality to the federal principle, while simultaneously putting the judiciary back into its proper constitutional place.
While the Constitution provides the means of restoration, clearly the process is a difficult one.
As demonstrated above, restoration of the Founders' formula for preserving liberty is, indeed, possible through the mechanisms provided by their Constitution. But what must take place in order for such restoration to occur?
THE PEOPLE MUST:
Prize and cherish Creator-endowed liberty above all (as did the Founders).
Study and develop understanding of the IDEAS and PRINCIPLES which, alone, lead to security and true liberty.
Study and develop understanding of the kind of deliberative, representative government (democratic republic) structured by the United States Constitution. Become familiar with its safeguards for liberty - so that they may recognize threats to their freedom under whatever disguise they may come.
Use their Constitutional knowledge and understanding to elect and support an ongoing majority in Congress and an Executive who are devoted to Constitutional principles and who will see that those appointed to the Judiciary are committed to preserving the integrity of the Constitution.
Exert their will and Constitutional privilege to recall elected officials who, once elected, support legislation which expands government power in violation of Constitutional principles.
Understand that the price of freedom is continual vigilance and accept personal responsibility for that vigilance.
See that the IDEAS and PRINCIPLES, as well as the passion for liberty, are passed on to future generations by requiring that they be taught in their local schools.
It was John Adams who said: "The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." Clearly, the Founders' passion was liberty, and in order to secure that liberty, they sought out and incorporated into the United States Constitution those ideas and principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
The French historian, Guizot, once asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will the American republic endure?" Lowell replied: "As long as the IDEAS of the men who founded it continue dominant"
Herein lies the answer to the question, "Will the Experiment Succeed?"
It can and will succeed IF the motivating "principle or passion in the minds of the people" is LIBERTY, and if that passion causes them to exert the determination and will to complete the needed restoration of the IDEAS upon which the great American experiment was based.
Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part VII: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
It’s the best a conservative can do? buying media’s lies and blaming Romney?
OK, that will solidify about 20% of the vote behind him - and might stave off a tiny percentage of defectors to Virgil Goode.
Then what? Obama will just have a whole new set of talking points to fax to the MSM.
The Obama Administration has been engaging in a spectacular display of self-destruction over the last few weeks. The MSM doesn't like talking about it, but the facts are getting through to the public even with all of the slanted reporting in the way.
Romney is just standing aside and letting the Administration flail around, as he should. The time to hit hard is in the last three weeks. The whole structure of the Administration is rotten - one well-timed knockout blow will end it. But it's still a bit too early.
If Romney were McCain I might be worried. But I don't think he is that kind of "hands-across-the-aisle" conciliator by nature.
Romney should have just released his 2011 returns along with his 2010 returns as promised and let it go at that. He should then have launched into an attack on Obama for his failure to release his school records, his medical records (in 2008 all Obama released was a one-page summary), etc. Obama is the one who is secretive and less than forthcoming on this background.
We now know of more than two dozen lies in Obama's Dreams from my Father. Romney should be attacking Obama's personal narrative not just his policies. What about Obama's association with terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn or extremists like Rev Wright or communists like Frank Marshall Davis?
It is already early voting time in states like Ohio and VA. People are casting their votes today. The Dems are busing them to the polls. It is time to unleash whatever you might have. Probably one-third of the votes will be cast prior to election day.
What Feder and many others may be missing is that the rapidly changing demographics of this country have changed electoral politics. The Dems will become the permanent majority party if we don't stop this insane policy of bringing in 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants every year--87% minorities as classificed by the USG. One in 8 residents of this country is foreign born (the highest in 90 years) compared to one in 21 in 1970 and one in 13 in 1990. Minorities and immigrants vote overwhelmingly Dem.
not to mention a media completely in the tank for Zero
not to mention a media completely in the tank for Zero
“A typical shoot your own side in the back instead of using your forum to attack the Leftist Media machine from another faux conservative media clown”
Yeah. Stuff like this is just faux conservative media clownage:
An unemployment rate of 8.1%, compared to 7.8% when he took office. Thats on top of the 7.7 million whove dropped out of the labor force. Long-term unemployment is up 87%.
The labor force participation rate is 63.5%, the lowest since 1981.
The number of Americans in poverty went from 39.8 million to 46.2 million. Food stamp recipients are up 46%.
Inflation-adjusted, middle-class income has declined by $3,900.
The federal debt increased a staggering 51% since January 2009. This years federal deficit will weigh in at $1.1 trillion. Obama has posted the only $1 trillion-plus deficits (4 of them), in our history.
The retail price of gas rose over 100% during the Obama years. The average price of beef increased from $3.69 to $6.99 a pound. Home values are down 40%-60%. The values of IRAs and 401ks fell 20% to 50%.
Unless the president and Congress act, the top tax rates will go up from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6% on January 1, 2013. Obama is targeting those with incomes of over $200,000, the people whose investments drive economic expansion. As we enter the next recession (did the last ever end?), Obama is siphoning more money from job-creation to the black hole of federal spending. The CBO estimates that by the second quarter of next year, unemployment will be over 9%.
Obamacare is causing 83% of physicians to consider getting out of medicine. Perhaps you can guess what that will mean for those of us wholl need more than a Band-Aid and an aspirin in the years ahead.
At least it is to the faux conservative commissariat of choreographed proskynesis.
not to mention a media completely in the tank for Zero
What Rassmussen is showing. A tie game
He is remember carter’s poll numbers and then the land slide happened.Poll are useless and debaites are just words,it’s a mans actions that count.
Obama’s good with words but he sucks when it comes to action.
“Youd never catch the Dems doing this...they boost up and fight and defend obama with their last dying breath...”
Well, the Democrats are entirely a party of lickspittle, credulous, stump broke whores and peons who know not to question what they are told are their betters. The Geriatric Old Plotters do not yet enjoy the luxury of such an obsequious base, although they are gaining on it.
Pearls before swine.
This may not be the style of campaigner that we would prefer for our candidate. I personally prefer to see Newt eviscerate Onamby pamby in the debates.
But this is the candidate that we have and he is much more competent to get us out of this mess than the alternative. He is not a street fighter, he is a business professional and a successful one and he is smart enough to stay with his strengths. Maybe some would like a heroic leader to rally the country. I would settle for a competent man in a gray suit to work in the background and make the government function efficiently and within it's constitutionally prescribed limits.
This writer is forgetting that the United States has become more liberal in the last 25 years and it is more difficult for a Republican to win the White House than it was in 1988 and 2000. The Hispanic percentage of our population increases every year and Hispanic people tend to vote for democrats. Our best response to the increasing percentage of registered democrats is to work really hard to increase the turnout on election day of Republicans and conservative-leaning independents. That's our best strategy, and we need to focus on strong turnout and stop this useless infighting.
The typical (too conservative for Romney) critique, oddly never appears on threads in which Romney is not part of the story, i.e. Obama job losses, Obama debt, Fast & Furious, Obamacare, etc. Threads where it is only possible to mock Obama.
These folks are curiously never outraged about Obama. Very strange.
The GOP had ‘08 planned for hussein so what makes ‘12 any different?
We have to drag him over the winner’s line because he is so inept and I do believe that it is because he does not have a core. He is a “how does the wind blow” type of candidate. Now he needs to win that I agree with you but man this was known from day one. Romney should be 50 points ahead of Obama but due to his lack of principles it is going to be a harder campaign and even more difficult win. Lessons Learned (I hope for next time).
What are we supposed to do, pretend Mitt is running a good campaign?
I want Obama to lose as bad as anyone, but I don’t have my blinders on. Mitt allowed the Democrats to define him, by not coming out guns blazing after the Conventions.
Romney is trying, but he’s trying by doing the wrong thing.
He’s trying to appear harmless to liberal women. He’s trying to make illegal immigrants think he loves them, so their families will like him. He’s trying to make people think he likes President Obama but wishes he would do a better job.
That was his platform. What should worry you are two facts: That platform attracted 30-35% of nominal Republicans, and the GOP is so f***ed up that the rules allow the nomination of a “winner” who had 65-70% of the primary voters against him.
His deficiencies as a candidate have been well-known here for several years. We have to try to drag him over the line as he is, ‘cause he’s not changing.
Actually the trend isn’t so much towards Liberal as people voting identity (and by way of that Party) rather than beliefs and ideology.
Blacks and Hispanics are examples of this. They are much more Conservative then their voting patterns reflect.
People want to vote for the “cool” candidate....it shows the impact that Hollywood and shows like “The Daily Show” have on the electorate....people don’t get their views from “Meet the Press” anymore, those were your Dad’s political shows.