Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney’s legacy: No ‘Romneyists’
washingtonpost.com ^ | 11/13/2012 | Jonathan Capehart

Posted on 11/14/2012 12:35:08 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: 21twelve
Not voting against Obama with a Romney vote regardless of where you are gave Obama a bigger mandate than he deserved.

Even in the deepest pits of Leftist Hell I would still register my opposition to the Devil.

Besides, imagine the joy the Left in Seattle experiences when they see the election results and logically believe conservatism is more dead than it actually is...I, for one, wouldn't give the SOBs the satisfaction.

41 posted on 11/14/2012 3:34:08 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve; All
As another “conservative in exile” here in the Seattle Area, my non-vote for Romney did NOT affect his election chances. AT ALL.

Of course it didn't; and the unhappy pouter stamping his widdle feetsies to the contrary certainly could have taken the minute, minute-and-a-half tops to Google the requisite information to that effect, had he genuinely any demonstrable interest in adding anything other than dull, dyspeptic bleating to the conversation. But [::sighs::] whaddya gonna do, right...? ;)

A little fable, for any/all out there still resolutely Not... Quite... Getting... It:

"Once upon a time, a pet food company created a new variety of dog food, and rolled out a massive marketing campaign to introduce the product.

"Despite hiring a first-rate advertising agency, initial sales were very, very disappointing. The agency was fired, and a new agency (with an expensive new campaign) was launched. Sales, however, stubbornly continued to crater. (If anything, in fact, they fell even further than they had before.)

"In desperation, the CEO called in all of his top executives for a brainstorming session to analyze what had gone wrong with the two campaigns, and how a new campaign might revive sales.

"The meeting went on for hours. Sophisticated statistical analysis was brought to bear on the problem. One VP argued that the mix of TV and print ads had been hopelessly bollixed. Another argued that the previous campaigns had been too subtle, and had failed to feature the product with sufficient prominence. Still another argued that the TV ad campaign had focused too much on spots during sporting events, and not enough on regular programming with a broader demographic. And yet another argued the exact opposite: not enough sports programming had been targeted!

"After the debate had raged for hour after fruitless hour, the CEO felt they had accomplished damned little. He asked if anyone else had any theories -- any at all -- that might conceivably explain the failure of their new product. Finally, one newly hired employee raised her hand and was recognized.

"'Maybe the dogs simply don’t like it,' she offered."

I can't even remotely imagine why that particular fable occurred to me just now. Honest. ;)

42 posted on 11/14/2012 3:36:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Maybe because Bush won twice

Slipshod statistical analysis. Pappy Bush (CINO) lost. Dole (CINO) lost. McCain (CINO) lost. Romney (CINO) lost. Dubya is, demonstrably, the aberration; not the rule.

Who do you believe would have been a candidate who could have been victorious over Obama?

Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative -- with a genuine record OF conservatism in governance -- would have accomplished Step One out of Baby's Big Book of Basic Electoral Politics, if nothing else: "Start By SECURING Your Base, Not DEPRESSING Your Base."

Which is, inarguably, considerably more than Mittens managed to do, given six full years and a hundred million dollars or so.

(... and, again, the correct question to be asked here is: "Why, given the humiliating record of crushing electoral futility highlighted above, does the GOP mulishly insist upon doing precisely the opposite -- ?!?")

Based on what?

Asked and answered. See above.

43 posted on 11/14/2012 3:51:26 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
They are vicious and will start howling at anyone that mentions the failure that is Romney!

They got precisely the genteel Massachusetts liberal they wanted; who ran precisely the campaign they wanted him to run; with a multi-year head start (since '08), and more cash on hand than might have been found forcibly crammed into Scrooge McDuck's fabled money bin.

They have no one at which to legitimately howl, ultimately, save themselves. ;)

44 posted on 11/14/2012 3:59:01 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I agree!


45 posted on 11/14/2012 4:11:23 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Slipshod statistical analysis. Pappy Bush (CINO) lost

He won once.

Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative

Do they have names or are they figments of your imagination?

46 posted on 11/14/2012 4:11:51 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Now that would make me do a “Happy Dance”!


47 posted on 11/14/2012 4:13:46 AM PST by marygam (I have extra ducktape for anyone who needs to wrap their head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

THE BOOK OF MORON

48 posted on 11/14/2012 4:17:24 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I’m glad to see that Romney finally has the political stake through his heart. Now, we need to exile those that shoved him down our throats. Let’s start with Rove and Coulter.


49 posted on 11/14/2012 4:19:49 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
.


Political "Death of A Salesman" : Romney's Pathetic Self-Implosion and Defeat by Obama (Vanity)


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2957804/posts



.
50 posted on 11/14/2012 4:22:38 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

great post ... it was well worth the effort ... the photos say it all ...


51 posted on 11/14/2012 4:30:06 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest



NBC News : Free Republic's Patton@Bastogne calls-out Myth Romney as a "Pathelogical Political Liar" at the Tampa 2012 GOP Convention ...


Patton@Bastogne calls-out Myth Romney as a "Pathelogical Political Liar" in Tampa ...(click)




Internet Link:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbcnews.com/48798495




52 posted on 11/14/2012 4:32:10 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

No one asked me, but my number one pick was and still is Allen West. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.


53 posted on 11/14/2012 4:38:42 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative -- with a genuine record OF conservatism in governance -- would have accomplished Step One out of Baby's Big Book of Basic Electoral Politics, if nothing else: "Start By SECURING Your Base, Not DEPRESSING Your Base."

are they figments of your imagination?

If you genuinely feel that "reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservatives" with enough simple, stick-stone-bone common sense NOT to uncontrollably piddle all over the inviolable Rule One of electoral politics are (your words) "figments of [my] imagination": small wonder, then, that the fumbling inherent in the GOP approach -- working from precisely that baseline premise -- has been one of such wretched, abject failure. Two (TWO!) losses to a serial adulterer and rapist; two (TWO!) losses, thereafter, to an open and unapologetic socialist.

Your (now) thrice-repeated attempt to steer discussion away from the epic disaster that was the GOP's lunatic, bucktoothed folles du Mittens -- and towards any other Republican and/or conservative actually NOT ultimately responsible for wholly and utterly botching the race against the Hugo Chavez of Chicago, with real unemployment whipsawing between 18-and-22% -- is noted, and (quite properly) disdained. Pointing a quivering, accusatory finger at Bachmann, or Perry, or Palin, or whomever-have-you does absolutely jack-all to mitigate the sheer, Krakatoan magnitude of the resulting shockwave from the entirely forseeable (and forseen) GOP/Mittens combination anti-Tea Party tantrum and electoral hari kari.

The GOP's problem, and yours, is a sweaty, desperate desire to "win," without ever once having to properly engage with either conservatives or conservatism. Have fun with that, by all means.

54 posted on 11/14/2012 4:44:54 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
Be eternally vigilant. My prediction -- and, given that I predicted the GOP would cheerfully slice its own electoral wrists via Romney seppuku four years ago, I'm feeling depressingly confident in my proven ability to accurately guesstimate the outermost boundaries of their collective imbecility, thank you -- is that, like busted Vegas gamblers to bone-stupid to realize they've already blown the deed to the house on a pair of deuces, they're going to go Full-Bore Moron for Jeb Bush in 2016... with either Scott Brown, Chris Christie or Lisa Murkowski, in the featured role of The Other Stooge. ;)
55 posted on 11/14/2012 4:58:23 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"too bone-stupid," that should have read. ;)
56 posted on 11/14/2012 4:59:51 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
It was so obvious even a political neophyte like me could see it plain as day. Not one of Rove’s finer picks.

[screwing off Rove's head, peering inside] My God, Jim, he has no core!

57 posted on 11/14/2012 5:10:57 AM PST by COBOL2Java (The GOP-e said "Beat a Marxist with a Liberal!" What a colossal blunder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
After that abjectly humiliating Election Night meltdown of his, on coast-to-coast television: the only way I ever want to see Karl Rove burbling on TV re: grown-up politics, from this day forward, is if appropriately garbed in a cap-and-bells, with little jangly shoes. ;)
58 posted on 11/14/2012 5:15:58 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“The GOP nominated the next loser in line who couldn’t beat the original loser.

That is how Karl Rove and Anne Coulter pimped on us the weakest candidate in Republican history who cost the party its chance at a Senate majority.”

And that is what should be his legacy. Rockefeller is ancient history to all but the older and most addicted political junkies. The term “Rockefeller Republican” is obsolete. That mantle of failure should now be “Romney Republican”.


59 posted on 11/14/2012 5:17:36 AM PST by Psalm 144 ("I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." Ronald Wilson Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

If only it were true. There may be no ideological faction that’s “Romneyist”, but his people are still part of the system, and therefore, will continue to be a problem.


60 posted on 11/14/2012 5:18:37 AM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson