Posted on 11/07/2012 3:23:45 AM PST by xzins
Akin and Mourdock?
Flawed arrogant stupid men who committed political suicide via foot-in-mouth. Whoever pushed them into candidacy committed political malpractice on the GOP
“We” have to do better and find truly good thoughful intelligent men and women.
In a nation of 300 million people surely we can.
If you will read again the opening of this piece, I clearly state that I DID put my X next to Romney’s name.
I did it because of Benghazi. I couldn’t imagine anyone being worse than Obama on that.
Then Romney backed off, disengaged, and never took up the gauntlet that had been delivered to him on a silver platter.
That had nothing at all to do with inter-republican rivalries.
It had to do with either his:
1. Resolve
2. Strategy
3. or both
He went tepid on us. With the bank collapese, McCain rolled over. With Benghazi, Romney timidly began playing prevent defense.
I honestly don’t see how anyone who ran could have done better. Gingrich? Santorum? Cain? They would have been destroyed. None have national organizations. Perhaps Perry (who was my first choice) but he proved incompetent on the national stage. Romney had the money and the organization and by the end, had a good message that I could live with. From October onward I thought he was a good candidate and deserved to win. But as others pointed out, we can’t win with 90% of blacks and 75% of Latinos voting against us. If we had this demographic, Ronald Reagan would not have won (and if we had the 1980 demographic, Romney would have won easily).
Oh I am 100% in agreement with you on that one and even my yellow dog Democrat elderly mom conceded that point this morning. I think she finally sees the light that the party she once knew doesn’t exist today. When they voted against God at the convention was what awakened her. She doesn’t vote anymore but I’ll take the advice she gave me this morning to remember that God is STILL in control and to trust in Him and not any man.
You both totally miss the point.
It wasn’t Romney’s conservatism or lack thereof that lost.
He lost because he was too timid to step in and battle, especially on Benghazi, but also on the budget, on obamacare, and for the Hispanic vote.
That's the big truth that all the so-called "conservative" experts miss. I thought Romney should have been an attacker, but the sad fact is we are not now a center-right country. We are center-left. The takers outnumber the producers. The takers by nature will disregard appeals to the good of the country. They want things for free. The country has changed irrevocably. Time for a split.
Boehner Boehner Boehner. You simpleton. You’ve been taking steps together, they act you capitulate.
See #105.
Also, Latinos voted against Romney because he did not have the courage of either Perry or Gingrich to acknowledge that singling out illegal hispanics causes legal hispanics to become uncomfortable, afraid that their rights will be trampled.
We might not like that they feel that way, but it has become glaringly obvious that they do. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote and Romney 28%. With numbers like that, you get the courage to tell you base the truth whether they want to hear it or not.
Legal Hispanics defending what they see as an attack on their right of privacy, equal treatment, etc., is CONSERVATIVE principle. We let Obama beat us with Hispanics over an issue that should have been ours.
Palin supporter here and the main reason is she calls it like she sees it and is not PC.
Yes, Romney played it too safe and middle of the road, but that is the only kind of candidate the Republicans will allow to run.
That being said, Romney is the squeaky cleanest candidate we could have put up this cycle. Any other candidate would have been trashed a lot more than he was and the outcome may have been a greater margin for the Dems.
Until we can produce a truly conservative candidate that can win the primaries, we will always be stuck with a milquetoast candidate. It would take years to rev up a viable 3rd party to counter this, but I think it may be the only way left...
agree 1000% on Rove- people here on Freep hate him but he knows how to win elections...i’d beg him or gingrich to come in and run the GOP....
My response while directed to you as a reply was using the inclusive “you” as in all of you who refused to vote. I apologize for not clearly understanding your post.
Other than that were I to express my true heartfelt feelings towards those “purist” who in their outrageous self involvement may have tossed this Nation in the toilet, I would be banned from this site.
Although we will all suffer because of our loss, I hope with all my heart the worst and most painful suffering is by those among us who are so ideologically “pure” that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to think passed the end of their nose and consider our kids and grandkids before themselves and their monumetal ego’s.
Excellent post.
Mittens supported amnesty for illegal aliens. No - I can’t support breaking the law just to pander for votes. That is the wrong thing to do. I won’t trade America’s identity for future votes for this or that voting bloc.
As for ObamaCare, in the debate on domestic policy, Mittens defended what he did in Massachusetts. He also touted by bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle. He lost because he was never a conservative. I could never vote for a liberal candidate no matter what party labels he wears. And I felt that four years of the same Obama policies under a Republican President was too much like what we has under Bush. Thanks but no thanks.
With Obama being terrible and having let this country into a mess - he could have been beaten! The fact he won says that this country has changed and not for the better.
We agree with each other for the most part, BB.
But, I would prefer a not-so-squeaky fighter to a squeaky-clean timid merchant.
Can you imagine Sarah Palin backing off on Benghazi? Even for a moment?
Until we get our voice back with the media, we are always going to come up wanting - no amount of ad blitzes can overcome the MSM. Our only chance is to let our money talk. Don’t buy papers that promote Obama (USA Today being a major player), genuinely boycott advertisers of shows that star people like Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin. We have to let our money talk because right now no one is listening. . . .,
Or the tyranny of the minority. A plurality of the American people actually voted against Obama but they got outvoted by the 48%. 50% of Americans no longer have a say in this country - get used to it!
You all are totally missing the big picture. The Dems set this whole scenario up back in the 60s. Control the big cities and you will control the national election. Until the Repubs retake control of the big cities, especially now 47% are on the tit, you will be wasting you time and money.
Agreed.
Conservatism wasn’t on the ballot last night.
Romney was simply a tanned version of Obama. He agreed with Obama on nearly everything to the point that Americans asked themselves if anything would be different if they had elected him.
No - it wouldn’t have.
I’m with you on all points. I just don’t see a fighter being allowed in the current Republican Party. They are too PC for that.
Other than a viable 3rd party, I don’t have a solution.
People had no reason to vote for an imitation liberal candidate. Romney offered a kinder and gentler version of Obama’s policies. The American people opted for the genuine article. I can’t say I’m surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.