WE ARE NOT COMING BACK!

Patriot Thoughts ^ | April 12, 2013 | Rabbi Steven Pruzansky

[Dick Bachert]

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky

(Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey.)

“The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, Economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.

And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government.

Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.

They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism.

That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!”

Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”

Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws.

He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups.

If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future.

The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.

A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.

Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.

The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.”

The Problems We Face Today Are There Because The People Who Work For A Living Are Outnumbered By Those Who Vote For A Living.

[Theophilus]

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning...

Especially if there is no conservative on the ballot.

[usconservative]

I see no mention of the widespread, blatant fraud carried out in key swing states.

DING DING DING!!! Right on. Exactly how is it in several parts of Ohio that Romney received ZERO votes, whereas Obama received 115% - 125% of the registered vote?

Nope, no election theft going on here, move along --- nothing to see!

[usconservative]

Yes, Romney lost because of the “free stuff”. But he also lost because the GOP establishment prefers to keeping control of the party over actually winning elections. Therefore, viable conservative candidates were carpet bombed into oblivion if they entered the race or simply intimidated out of running in the first place.

Much truth in what you wrote. I'd add that having 32 bazillion debates between the 94 candidates that were running (exaggeration of course) certainly didn't help matters. By the time it came down to Romney v. Obama I don't think there was a single person in this country who didn't already have their mind made up as to which way they were going to vote - or not vote and stay home.

Anyone claiming to be an "independent" or "undecided" did it for the media attention IMO, dumbasses that they were.

[Kickass Conservative]

>”The People Who Work For A Living Are Outnumbered By Those Who Vote For A Living”<

While everything else in the Article made perfect sense, the line above fits the bill.

The only exception being that a bunch of people who “work for a living” still buy into the Obama mantra.

[Maelstorm]

They just don’t get it. The Romney ‘campaign’ didn’t run a campaign which is why they couldn’t compete. If you want to compete you have to show up to the fight and for most of 2012 Romney didn’t and when he did he said really stupid things that didn’t help him and I’m not talking about the 47% comment which has been given far more credit than it deserved. It was more his series of comments like saying “I’m proud to be called the grandfather of Obamacare” etc. That is really inspiring to those 2010 voters. What Romney did was play the ambiguous card and lost while Obama ran out to his base and rallied them hard to the polls. The GOP upper echelon are idiots in the marketing department. They should have the strongest brand in America. The brand that forged America. The value of hard work, the striving to be ones best even if one is born with the least, the building strong families which through their strength strengthen individual liberty and community and deflate the need for big govt. The GOP and Romney suffered from being muddled in 2012. Its like the geniuses with the money said we just won big in 2010 and then just disregarded all that produced that win. Its crazy but that is why the GOP is the stupid party.

[redangus]

Romney or any republican loses because the dems start with over 200 guaranteed EVs from the NE and Cal. and then just have to win 10-15 major cities in the swing states. It’s that simple. Unless the GOP govs and legislatures change the electoral distribution to house districts rather than by the state as a whole we are doomed to losing all future pres elections.

[Dick Bachert]

Thanks for the POSSIBLE corrections.

As we both know, “progressive” historical revisionists and what Roger Sherman correctly called “...the friends of paper money...” inhabit EVERY CAMPUS in the US today. My concern is that they also infest the UVA.

We have had many such purging of materials these creatures consider hostile to their demented ideology. One such occurred under FDR, to wit:

Historian George Bancroft later wrote: “James Madison left his testimony that *the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off.* This is the interpretation of the clause, made at the time of its adoption by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive.”

(Bancroft – founder of the U.S.Naval Academy at Annapolis among other accomplishments – wrote a book on this very subject entitled “A Plea for the Constitution of the United States: Wounded in the House of Its Guardians.” During WWII, FDR – a serious friend of paper money – ostensibly to supply the war effort, ordered the printing plates for many historical books smelted. Bancroft’s book was among them. A photocopy of one of the remaining originals can be found here

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=bE7PP1ePQwgC&dq=Constitution+wounded+in+the+house+of+its+guardians&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=iiJ1_2B_IA&sig=ByRM-kVMIDAs4S5OttEqkCXGm8s#PPA4,M1 )

These people will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

[TBP]

Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

All of those were contributing factors, as was the Etch A Sketch comment. Millions fewer voted, and they were mostly conservatives. Now, why didn't Romney appeal to conservatives?

[Dick Bachert]

Probably because, having spent far too much time in Massachusetts, he may have held conservative ECONOMIC values, but was NOT a real IDEOLOGICAL conservative.

[TBP]

Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

If he had been a strong defender of these conservative virtues, maybe the author would have a case. But Mittens Etch A Sketch tried to run as just barely conservative enough to keep people in the tent, while essentially he's a "progressive." Romneycare, remember? (Or Obamneycare, as someone dubbed it.)

In almost all of the primaries prior to the nomination being locked up, the conservative candidates (the Not Romneys) got around 2/3 of the vote, yet Romney kept winning. Conservatives were not and are not sold that Romney is a conservative in any way.

Had he been a real conservative, he might have gotten some of those millions of stay-at-homes to vote. Look at 2010. The Republicans ran mostly as full-spectrum conservatives, and they won BIG -- around 700 seats at various levels.

So of course, they had to nominate a "moderate". ("Moderate is a base-stealing word for liberal Republicans." -- William F. Buckley Jr.) After all, everyone knows that only "moderates" are electable.

Choose electability and you'll lose most of the time.

[Lancey Howard]

Great post.

Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Perfectly stated.

[Iron Munro]

They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, Economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.

Normally in the case of a divided legislature and an insuffereable butt-hole as president we would have gridlock.

And with a tyrannical socialist as president it wouldn't be such a bad turn of events.

But in this case King Obama just does what he wants without regard for congress, court, law or constitution.

[Mr. Jeeves]

The only exception being that a bunch of people who “work for a living” still buy into the Obama mantra.

Because they don't want to have to work for a living - and they hope some day the Democrats will make that unnecessary. :)

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Baloney.

The reason for Romney’s fail to elect are two:

1) Romney is not mainstream.
2) The employ-foreigners GOP does not win votes.

Bring back US jobs.

[Yosemitest]

I tend to agree with your comments.
However, when the Rabbi states:

"Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win."

I'm not so sure about that.

Someone once wrote:

"Stolen?
Then you should get right on this and prove it."

First watch 8 minutes 16 seconds of video titled Romney defeated Obama - if not for voter fraud.

Then ... read and think about this. Someone wrote:

"I believe there was voting fraud,
but that it was not the reason Romney lost.
Even without fraud he would still have lost. "

I don't completely agree.

Someone said, "We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested"
Playing the victim? Really?

Yes we had a weak field.
Only about 38 percent of the Republicans supported Romney in the Primary.
So 62 percent voted AGAINST "Establishment Republican" Romney.
Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

Victim? Do you really believe that Romney got ZERO votes in 68 Precincts?

Odd? Romney Got ZERO Votes In 59 Precincts in Philly, and 9 Precincts in Ohio

Do you really believe it was an accident that when some people voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the machine appeared to change it to the Democrat candidate Barack Obama?

I believe there WAS ENOUGH Voter Fraud to throw the 80 Electoral College Votes from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.
I also believe that had Romney SAVAGED Obama, like he SAVAGED the Conservatives that ran against him in the Primary,
Romney would have gotten more votes in the General election.
So yes, it's Romney's fault, but there WAS ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD to steal the election for Obama.

Why Are N.C. Early Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama?

More Electronic Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama: We Looked Into It and Here’s What a Vendor Told Us

Do you really believe that Democrats didn't intentionally vote more than once for Obama?

Read more: Voter watchdog says it's uncovered absentee ballot fraud in Florida, New York

Denying being a victim of voter fraud doesn't help.
But getting the criminal enterprise of the Obama Judicial System to prosecute the guilty who stole this election, is a lost cause.
Remember, it doesn't matter who has the votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes.

Obama ordered ACORN Steals Votes For him during presidential run.



"It's not the people who vote that count.
It's the people who COUNT the votes."


(Josef Stalin)

URGENT: ELECTION FRAUD VOLUNTEERS NEEDED IN WI, OH, PA, VA, FL

Maker of Unskewed Polls Creates ‘Obama Voter Fraud’ Map — See Which States He Thinks Should’ve Been Romney’s

Why There Won’t Be a Presidential Recount

None Dare Call it Stolen Ohio, the election, and America’s servile press

www.unskewedpolls.com

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Voter Turnout figures for 2012 indicate possible voter suppression and fraud

Vote Scamming in Philadelphia

Vote Scamming in Cleveland

Was Virginia won by vote fraud?

Vote Scamming in Florida

Question: Should President Romney Pardon Treasonist Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro ?

Romney might have won, but with Obama's Criminals running the "Justice Department", they'll never admit Romney won.

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com

[Mmogamer]

Paper money based on nothing but faith is actually worthless.

[Taxman]

The “. . . bunch of people who “work for a living” [and] still buy into the Obama mantra” are on his payroll!

He bought them before & after the 2008 election, and bought them (plus some new ones) again for the 2012 election.

They are ALL getting filthy rich at our expense!

I don’t need to point them out to FReepers — we know who they are, and they will have the resources to totally insulate themselves FRom the chaos that they know is coming!

And, We the People will be left with the aftermath! We will have to suck it up, pick up the pieces and rebuild America.

Maybe we can get it right on the rebound?

[Taxman]

See my post #37

[Dick Bachert]

And a testosterone-challenged Congress bends over, grips their ankles and intones “Thank you sir. May I have another?”