Posted on 11/07/2012 3:23:45 AM PST by xzins
I knew last week that it was over, and I knew it because of Benghazi, the very issue that had me reluctantly put my check mark next to Romney's name, because I couldn't conceive that a Romney administration would have abandoned the lives of our heroes to the hatred of Al Qaeda.
Benghazi, Budget, BamaCare, Barrios....the 4 B's.
During the debates, conservative commentators liked to talk about Bayonets and Battleships, but four other B's explain Romney's loss and why he was the wrong man to carry the flag.
Benghazi was a window of opportunity presented to Romney that he was too timid to address. Some say that Romney decided after the first debate to just run out the clock. Well, events intervened and Hurricane Sandy made running out the clock impossible. (Give Governor Chris Christi an assist with mother nature's efforts.) In reality, though, discussion of Benghazi by Romney could have continued throughout Sandy, but Romney never again picked up the one issue that was moving the polls at that time. Once Candy Crowley slapped him in debate #2, he backed off. It was an absolute scandal, and no one ever asked Obama where he was at the time the live feed from Libya was playing. Romney lost for lack of sand.
Romney muzzled Ryan and the budget debate never was held. The very reason he was called courageous for his Ryan pick was the very thing they shut Ryan down on. Ryan was reduced to waving his arms at Romney gatherings. Platitudes of balancing budgets were common, but there was no stomach for discussing the real dangers affecting America is the budget was not controlled. Tepid describes the Romney approach to the budget.
As predicted, Romney never addressed the very issue that brought about the Tea Party. ObamaCare was simply not an issue for Romney. He was vulnerable due to his own support of RomneyCare, parent of ObamaCare, so he really couldn't attack the idea of big government health care. When it came to ObamaCare, Romney was simply the wrong guy to carry the message. Romney was AWOL -- as predicted during the primary season -- on ObamaCare.
The barrios of America rejected Romney by a huge margin. Forty-four percent of Hispanics supported George W. Bush. Romney garnered a meager 28%. Sadly, most Hispanic Americans have religious reasons to support a more conservative view of life and should naturally fall into the conservative camp. Anyone who has ever watched a migrant worker picking fruit in a field knows that a huge number of Hispanices do not shy from hard work. Sure there are those who would rather live on the dole, but isn't that the case with every demographic? Romney shot the one messenger who had a message that obviously appealed to Hispanic Americans, the governor of Texas. Like Perry or not, the same as George W. Bush, Perry had to get elected in a highly Hispanic state, Texas, so his sensibilities on the subject of the Hispanic vote should have been heeded.
Conservatives must find the inner resolve to admit that targeting Hispanic illegals makes Hispanic legals worry about their inalienable rights of privacy, search and seizure, and equal treatment. Another bitter pill for conservatives is that Hispanic legals are more compassionate toward Hispanic illegals than is the average conservative. With significant Hispanic populations in most of the swing states, conservatives should have noticed that Perry had found a balance that elevated him to the governor's seat in Texas AND permitted him to apply both economic and social conservatism throughout his state. The bottom line is that inalienable rights SHOULD BE a conservative issue. And while "compassionate conservatism" earned George Bush enmity with many conservatives, it also earned him the White House. Conservatives need to rethink the Hispanic vote and acknowledge that concerns about individual inalienable rights trump immigration purity in their minds.
It was too late for Romney, though. He had already taken a hard line stance to win the primary debate with Perry, attacking him mercilessly along with Michelle Bachman. He launched another barrage against Newt Gingrich on the same subject. Neither Romney nor Bachman was experienced in winning the Hispanic vote. Perry was inexperienced in winning primaries. In this instance, Romney lacked the determination of George W. Bush to push back against the poorly aimed concerns of base conservatives.
Romney's loss was predictable and was predicted. The reasons will open a huge debate. The four B's explain much: Benghazi, Budget, oBamaCare, and Barrios. In each instance, whether due to timidity or misguided policy, Romney proved to be the wrong candidate. Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong message.
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.