Elections have consequences
Posted on 11/07/2012 1:49:49 PM PST by Kaslin
Well,the Liberaltarians are ecstatic, wait until they get their way, their next goal is decriminalization of kiddie porn.
Being poor is supposed to be unpleasant.
Rush hit it on the head with this analogy. The oppositions plan is to hand out lots of goodies, get their votes, and then make it someone else’s responsibility. This is not at any time a recipe for a successful society. It is criminal that the media and the Democrat party are teamed up to produce this very result. I think it is Galt time in America. This is unsustainable, and the fact that a candidate for president ran on it’s sustainability and won is time for alarms to go off very loud.
I’m just scared that someone is going to start shooting left-wing media types.
The ordinary American doesn't see any evidence that "this is unsustainable."
Until they do, it's sustainable.
Elections have consequences
Please help me. The downside of that would be.....?
If those who would be robbed to fill Santa Claus’ bag had showed up in equal quantity, we’d not be in this fix.
A biblical view is learning to be content whether abounding or living on a shoestring.
In the short term, this would be bad for giving ammo to the anti-gunners. But if a media entity or media figure visibly takes sides, they will be considered political operators and face all the risks that go along with being a political figure. Just stating a fact.
An email I sent to Rush:
Rush, I know that you are down, and I do not like kicking anybody when anybody is down but you are totally wrong about the American people and kind of disappointed in you. This election was very hard for us to win for the following reasons:
1) MOST PRESIDENTS OR INCUMBANTS GET RELECTED…..if the party and supporters are behind him and/or the economy doing good. Incumbency has perks. Obama did not have the good economy but he had a unified party behind him. Ford in 1976 had Reagan, split party, Nixon, bad economy. Carter in 1980 has a split party, primary challenger Ted Kennedy, problems overseas, and the economy really sucked. H.W. Bush had Buchannan in the primary, kind of a split party, kind of a sucky economy and Ross Pereot. Some knew that their party was not behind him, did not run, like Truman and Johnson. Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had no party challenge. With your party and supporters behind you, you can……
2) DEFINE YOUR OPPONANT BEFORE HE DOES. Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama all did. W. Bush and the “Swift boaters.” Most people did not know Romney so Obama with Baine Capital and War on Women defined Romney. Obama also picked subjects that would….
3) GET YOUR BASE OUT. Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama all did in there reelection. They all pick and command the issues that got their base out. The War on Woman was nothing but to scare Democratic women get out to vote. If you took all the women who voted for Obama, they will vote 95% of the time for a Democrat without this phony War on Women. Why because they are women who are DEMOCRATS! These women would never ever vote for a Republican.
This was 2004, not 1980. There are other factors like “White Guilt” but that another subject.
The first item is a given and nothing we can do about it. Second item we can somewhat control and I’m sorry, Romney did not do a good job, not bad job, and I know it is very difficult to do so because of Item 1.
The third item is Romney and Republicans fault. Turnouts were DOWN for both candidates. There is no question that Democrats were NOT as enthusiastic about Obama this time around. The messiah complex is gone. Even Democrats think Obama is a hack politician, but he’s their hack politician. They were just fighting for the status and for 31 year old coed who go to elite and expensive college to get her birth control paid by taxpayers. Obama lost more votes from 2008 than the Republicans, actual and percentage wise. They had a much better ground game. They did out hustle us.
But was Republicans enthusiastic about Romney? Sorry, we were not. All we had was he’s not Obama. If Romney received as many vote John McCain did we would be talking about President-Elect Romney.
If we are not enthusiastic about Romney, why should Americans be? Why should independents be?
50% of Americans are NOT takers and want Santa Claus, but 51% of Americans who voted yesterday are. Which is 20% of the American people. We failed to get out the other 80%. We failed to get out Republican women and youth vote out. We failed, America did not.
Why is that "surprising"? Romney couldn't even beat McCain in the '08 primary.
Liberal as he is, McCain is less liberal than Romney.
I've read so damn many tweets, I can't remember or find this one. Might have been from Dana Loesch - Only 32% of registered republicans turned out yesterday.
That is shockingly bad.
It has to do with turn-out.
Nixon got more votes in 1960 when he lost than he did in 1968 when he won.
When the people find they can vote themselves other peoples money, democracy dies.
Rush is right, we lost the country last night. Hard work is no longer viewed as a recipe for success, in fact it is viewed as foolish at best, and stealing at worst.
So now what?
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.