Posted on 11/07/2012 6:21:33 PM PST by Arthurio
Inside the ballroom in the Boston conference centre where Romney gave his perfunctory concession speech last night, his supporters were stunned by the scale of his defeat when just hours earlier they were confident of success or at least a nail-biting finish.
But hindsight will probably view Mitt Romney a poor presidential candidate who appeared to have no core values, was selected only reluctantly by his own party and campaigned as if the whole experience was deeply uncomfortable for him.
He made plenty of mistakes but his biggest failing was that even after running for the White House for the best part of six years it was hard to fathom exactly who he was or what he really believed – as opposed to what he thought voters wanted him to believe.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229083/US-Election-2012-analysis-Hindsight-view-Mitt-Romney-poor-candidate-says-Toby-Harnden.html#ixzz2BarVWZ5u Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Please write a book on the media corruption which handed Obama a second term. One potential title: ‘Media Mayhem: A Verdict on Dishonest Journalism in the 2012 Presidential Race’. If you don’t, I might...
It's like with anything: you win some, you lose some. All we can do is try to target the problem incumbents with the most ideal potential candidates. I don't think we erred in taking down Lugar, he was long since a collaborationist (there was a reason the Democrats didn't bother to run anyone against him in a premier Dem year like 2006). Mourdock looked like a great candidate, won statewide twice, but his mouth got him in trouble in following suit with ill-advised comments on rape.
The candidate I personally supported in MO got the nomination, that being Akin. I had my concerns with Sarah Steelman because she lost a vicious primary for Governor in 2008 and I believed the state party establishment, which went well out of its way to sink her in favor of Kenny Hulshof, might be too controversial to win (along the lines of Angle in NV in '10). As it turned out, she might very well have had an easier race. One thing is for certain, there ought to be a permanent ban on any GOP candidate discussing the issue of rape and abortion, especially male candidates. That was established by Clayton Williams in the 1990 TX Governor's race. He was well on his way to an easy romp when he cracked a joke that compared rape to inclement weather. That one single joke had enormous repercussions, as had Williams won, Dubya wouldn't have become Governor in 1994, and hence wouldn't have become President (indeed, it probably would've been Jeb who would've been the Presidential nominee in 2000, and unlikely there wouldn't have been a FL debacle).
As for Ohio, we had a talented candidate in Josh Mandel, who was probably about the best we could've put up. Despite Brown being a moonbat, he knows how to win statewide. Mandel also never established a lead (unlike Mourdock and Akin before their comments). Fortunately, he is young, still holds office, and has a bright future ahead, especially as a future successor to Gov. Kasich in 2018. He could still run for the Senate in the 2020s or 2030s and will still only be in his 40s or 50s. Some have even mentioned him as the potential first Jewish President. Ohio, of course, has produced some exceptional Republican leaders going back to the party founding (and I include Warren Harding amongst them... a criminally underrated President who resolved a recession in short order after the execrable Wilson).
"What I think you would agree with me about is that EVEN if we could get a clean sweep of (say) 20 Rs elected to the senate in one cycle and ALL of them were Tea Party candidates, there is slippage: Scott Brown drifted away after a few months."
Brown made the dangerous mistake by presuming a leftward movement will yield electoral rewards. That only serves to undermine support from the right. Even at that, however, I didn't personally take an open stance of opposing him. The deceitful bitch who beat him is very dangerous. How she managed to win despite the mountain of fraud, however, speaks more to the mentality of MA voters. It also points to the double-standard between the two parties. Republicans SAY something wrong and they lose. Democrats DO something wrong and they win. Ultimately, though, with little exception, we're better off NOT running squishes. NM was winnable, but Heather Wilson ran such a low-key race and refused to go nuclear on Heinrich that it was blown almost at the starting gate. Not to say we should've run Pearce again, but perhaps fishing out in the business community for types like Ron Johnson of WI.
Sad, too, is what happened in WI. How a Madison-based moonbat obsessed over sexuality could win statewide is appalling. But, the warning signs were there. I opposed both Neumann (as a multiple-time loser) and Thompson in the primary. Thompson was too old and tired to be running a contest he should've mounted back in 1994 (indeed, he should've been concluding 3 terms in the Senate and retiring). The one candidate we should've run was a no-brainer, and that was Paul Ryan. Now poor WI is stuck with a Stalinist lesbian until January 2019.
"Rubio is already often off script."
Rubio clearly wants to be the Presidential nominee in 2016. How he behaves and votes from this point on will have to be viewed through that prism.
"There are certainly stalwarts (Johnson, Paul, DeMint) but my point is that even if the Tea Party candidates are totally successful, you still end up needing to replace 1/3 of them within a couple of years when they "go Washington." So not only do you have to elect the right people once, but then you have to unelect them sometimes in the very next cycle. And the threat of unelecting them or primarying them never seems sufficient incentive for them to toe the line, partly because they only get home a couple of times a year."
Eternal vigilance. Gotta ride them and remind them why they were sent to DC. Some rot soon, some stay fresh for a long time (like Jesse Helms, who was truly a treasure and sadly one-of-a-kind. He plugged away at his job and didn't give a damn what the media, culture and elites thought of him. Too many get to DC and worry they won't get invited to the parties with the popular kids and all the beautiful people. If that's their goal, it's time for them to come home). DC is such an immoral cesspool that even the very best people can get pulled under.
Of course, this sounds a bit like I'm supportive of term limits, but I'm actually torn. While it sounds good, explicit limits could diminish the effectiveness of the members while the real power would be in the unelected staffers, chiefs-of-staff, etc. If we put in term limits, they'd have to go all the way down to office volunteers. I'm one of the few whom is actively supportive of repealing civil service and a return to patronage. Patronage as such with term limits means few to no lifetime gov't workers. Bring in your people, and 2 years, 4 years, 6 or 8 and they're out. That way you're utterly responsible for your people and don't have a perpetually protected class of folks (mostly leftists) that have their own agenda of undermining Conservatism. I understand why it was implemented in the 19th century, but with out-of-control growth of government to the point its impossible to trim, what other choice is there ? Of course, that's something a bit out of the aegis of Congress and more applicable to the various governmental departments.
"TN is great. I'm sure TX is pretty close too. But future electoral success MUST be fought in all states. We cannot keep conceding 150 electoral votes before the counting even starts. And for that, we need a strategy and a better rationale than "Obama wasn't as strong as he was in 08)" or, "The Tea Party's not quite dead yet.""
Well, we also have to be realistic. We have to be sure to nail down what we know we can win and then move on from there. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to waste resources in states that are out of reach. As an example, California, unless we can recruit a self-financing candidate for Governor, there is little point in wasting money there. But we should target those Congressional seats that are competitive. Ditto for New York state (an enormous mistake was in 2010 not fielding Giuliani for Governor -- and despite concerns many FReepers have for him, we'd be foolish not to support winnable candidates and stopping potential future Dem Presidential contenders like Andrew Cuomo). Unless said GOP candidates are viscerally antithetical to the Conservative agenda (i.e. Tisei in MA or Arnold Schwarzenegger), we should try to get the best we can get out of a state or district. We need to be ginning up now for 2014 and laying the groundwork to increase our numbers in the House and capture the Senate (and only incompetence as bad as this year would keep us from winning the latter next time -- at least 12 seats should be targeted: AK, AR, IA (if Harkin retires), LA, MI (if Levin retires), MN, MT (if Baucus retires), NH, NC, SD, VA & WV (if Rockefeller retires). Indeed, if John Kerry replaces Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, Scott Brown might be able to beat a return to the Senate in another special election in the coming year.
Pete, you’re spinning gold! Too bad it’s the ugly truth.
Like I’ve posted multiple times: It’s over.
the question is: when the country gets very very poor ... much of this liberal stuff may disappear. Maybe.
If the financing of liberalism dries up, how much of it can they keep going? This type of system flourishes in a high-tax society, but when tax revenues dry up ... when there is a permanent revolt, can they kill off the re-emergence of the parasitic system?
Can’t disagree with one thing you said.
In “Blue” state politics, all you need is a “D” by your name and an election to run in.
In Massachusetts, for example, the person doesn’t matter. This year it was John Tierney, a Democrat so aputrid even the Boston Glob wouldn’t endorse him. He still won (aided by a 3rd party, but won).
Who was it again that was talking about secession years ago, and those posts were pulled? Oh, yeah, ME.
Flawed candidates, for sure. They prove the stereotype that Conservatives are knuckle dragging buffoons.
But, don’t underestimate the “takers” and the change in demographics. After seeing the effects of the flirtation with socialism said loudly they want the whole enchilada.
So, f*ck them. Let them have it.
I hate “hindsight” piling on. Frankly it’s just a bunch of sourpusses who are feeling angry over our loss. Heck, we are all sick about our loss but I don’t blame Romney. We gushed over his first debate with Obama and Romney looked and sounded Presidential. Had he resorted to mean attacks in the next debates he would have been criticized for that!
How do you beat corruption and clueless people who are wanting a Santa Clause who gives them everything? I read that Obama won 100% of the vote in many, many ‘wards’ in Ohio and Philadelphia. It was reported that he even won 108% of the vote in one and thousands more votes in some than there were registered voters!!
Never again will the population vote for the kind of ‘perfection’ our people are wanting. Half or more of our country are amoral, greedy, and, quite frankly, seem to love a lying man with cold, soulless eyes. Only God can help turn us around.
Men his age get back problems. Rick Perry also had that problem.
I thought Obama was a far worse candidate and seemed more uncomfortable.
History will prove that this was our last chance to save the Union...at least for decades.
Well said, potlatch. I agree with every word.
Was there any other early voting state where the Hispanic population waited until late Tuesday to show up en masse? Just wondering.
Ahh, thank you nit. Everyone else is spouting off so I put in my 2cents worth too, lol.
You know my circumstances - I really didn’t follow a lot of other sites. Just sat here with the TV on and the live thread. When they announced Ohio I just went to bed...
We all know some odd things happened.
There are people who pushed Romney as being the best candidate, and they’ve been proven wrong. IOW, they are covering their butts.
I love your post because you are so very right!
“Never again will the population vote for the kind of ‘perfection’ our people are wanting.”
Never say “never”. If you do, you will be proved wrong...as I hope to be the case this time.
“Half or more of our country are amoral, greedy, and, quite frankly, seem to love a lying man with cold, soulless eyes.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head!
I will say this...the coming economic collapse will hurt the Obama voters most. And, they deserve it.
“Only God can help turn us around.”
This!!!
//If only he had been as ruthless with Obama as he was with all of his conservative primary challengers.
Bingo (plus spend the bucks to deal with any fraud)
2016 may be America’s last chance, we can afford no mistakes. We need someone that can win and will be a conservative in office to try and undo the damage.
Gregg, pass, unknown New Englander lacking in charisma and far too establishment
Hoeven, Pass, unknown from North Dakota, parochial.
Otter Pass- Otter was a promising member of the House but has done anything as Governor to impress anyone?
Jindal is possibility, many freepers have called him boring and ugly though
Deal, good ole boy, I don’t think so
Fallin, an interesting female choice
Brownback, meh, underwhelming
Kasich, possible
The frontrunner ought to the man we should have run this time, Scott Walker. I consider it a PLUS that he never served in Congress. While I agree with you in principle that ideally a President would have experience in a few different offices, Congress is a cesspool.
Of the 3 most recent decent Presidents, Reagan, Ike, Coolidge, none of them served in Congress. From Truman to Obama all the others did except for Bush Jr. and all were generally terrible.
2016 may be America’s last chance, we can afford no mistakes. We need someone that can win and will be a conservative in office to try and undo the damage.
Gregg, pass, unknown New Englander lacking in charisma and far too establishment
Hoeven, Pass, unknown from North Dakota, parochial.
Otter Pass- Otter was a promising member of the House but has done anything as Governor to impress anyone?
Jindal is possibility, many freepers have called him boring and ugly though
Deal, good ole boy, I don’t think so
Fallin, an interesting female choice
Brownback, meh, underwhelming
Kasich, possible
The frontrunner ought to the man we should have run this time, Scott Walker. I consider it a PLUS that he never served in Congress. While I agree with you in principle that ideally a President would have experience in a few different offices, Congress is a cesspool.
Of the 3 most recent decent Presidents, Reagan, Ike, Coolidge, none of them served in Congress. From Truman to Obama all the others did except for Bush Jr. and Clinton (both ran for the House and lost) and all were generally terrible.
A little bit better effort and that bum Romney might have won. Some people have taken to canonizing him now after he’s lost but I place a good deal of the blame on his campaign.
Not counting the good people that were in over their head, Bachmann and Cain (Cain is a guy that might have had a shot if he knew what he was doing and didn’t get bimboed by the media.), the best candidates were
Santorum, that a Senator who lost by 18 and was unable to break out of the social conservative box was ultimately the best viable choice shows what an awful crop of candidates we had.
and
Pawlenty, a boring moderated-edged Governor who was so uninspiring he dropped out before Iowa.
Santorum probably would have done worse than Romney.
Pawlenty could have potentially done better but we’ll never know. Probably not.
Huntsman is pro-life but otherwise to Romney’s left on everything and he left the party and I think helped Obama win behind the scenes or at least his father did. He never registered in the polls anyway.
Perry and Gingrich were clowns, hardly more conservative than Romney and so inept that Obama would have murdered them. Perry made me miss Bush and Gingrich made me miss Perry.
What a sorry sorry crop.
And freepers were clamoring for author and actress Sarah Palin, only later did a few smart people start clamoring for Walker instead.
If this was 50 years ago when the race didn’t start a year+ before the election Walker would have been nominated at the convention.
Gentlemen:
Back before the 17th amendment, didn’t most senators serve only one term?
Many did, but it tended to depend on the political leanings of a given state and whether they were one party or not. Some early Senators served a long time, such as William King of Alabama, who served for all but 4 years from 1819 to 1852, interrupting only to accept an Ambassadorship and in the latter year when he was elected Vice President. John Tyler Morgan, also of Alabama, served uninterrupted from 1877 until his death in 1907.
In Northern Whig or Republican states, you had people like Vermont’s Justin Morrill, who after serving 12 years in the House, went on to serve another almost 32 years in the Senate uninterrupted (from 1855 until almost 1899).
Even in border states like Missouri, you had Democrat Thomas Hart Benton serve from 1821 until 1851 (he might’ve lasted longer had the Whigs not ousted him in that latter year). Henry Clay served on 5 separate occasions as Kentucky Senator between 1807 to 1852 in between his time in the House.
Mind you, these aren’t typical, but there were more than a few people who served 2 terms or more. The difference in the earlier days (and I tend to mean pre-Civil War) is that many Senators would abide by the wishes of the legislature. If the Senator could not or would not obey their will (or if the body switched parties), they would often dutifully step aside and allow someone who would follow their wishes. Resignations were relatively frequent.
However, many would also cling to the entirety 6-year term regardless (post-Civil War). Situations such as Black Mississippi Republican Blanche Bruce who was elected 2 years prior to the state’s so-called Democrat “Redemption”, and he essentially had to spend the last 4 years of his term in Washington, as it was no longer safe for him to return to the state (ironically, his junior Senator seatmate, the Democrat Lucius Q.C. Lamar, had more than some passing sympathy for his situation). Bruce would later have to rely on the patronage of GOP administrations for a job.
I tend to oppose repeal of the 17th, because it would immediately make it impossible for a number of states to ever elect Republicans again (although conversely in this past election, Democrats Ben Nelson of FL; Donnelly of IN; Stabenow of MI; McCaskill of MO; Tester of MT; Heitkamp of ND; Brown of OH; Casey of PA; Kaine of VA & Baldwin of WI ALL would never have been able to win with the legislature electing them, with the Maine open seat, Brown of MA and Heller of NV would’ve lost on the GOP side). Of course, with the number of winnable seats the GOP blew this time, that can make a powerful argument for the 17th repealers.
I’ve made the argument that even if we swept all those seats above, there wouldn’t be many strident pro-Constitutional types getting elected. The Dem membership in those one party states would be just as horrid and untouchable, while the GOP ones would be full of establishment flunkies and Rovian puppets. As an example, Texas would not have elected Ted Cruz, but the odious RINO liberal Lt Governor David Dewhurst, as he would’ve used his $$ and power to coerce the legislators into supporting him (and if he couldn’t have gotten enough GOP votes, he would’ve scared Democrats into voting for him to stop that “right winger” Cruz). As it was, Dewhurst did precisely that in strong-arming legislators and others to do his bidding to stop Cruz in the runoff.
It’s that latter example of why I can’t support repeal of the 17th.
I don’t support repealing the 17th Amendment because I live in Illinois, a state where both houses of the legislature are controlled by Democrats. If the legislature could elect U.S. senators, IL wouldn’t have elected republican senators in 1998 and 2010, and IL probably wouldn’t elect republican senators, during the next 10 years, at least.
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.