Why Romney Lost

Townhall ^ | 08/08/2013 | Jack Kerwick

[SeekAndFind]

In his latest book, Collision 2012, Dan Balz, a Washington Post writer, expresses his incredulity over “the inability” of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to “humanize” its candidate.

This is one reason why, in Balz’s estimation, Romney lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama.

Yet there are two other reasons that he supplies to account for Romney’s defeat. The one pertains to the “technically superior” character of his rival’s campaign. The other is in regard to Romney’s “ambivalence” concerning his bid for the presidency.

The first thing that should be noted is that if Romney’s consultants had difficulty in “humanizing” their man, it’s because those at places like the Washington Post were more determined to see to it that he was dehumanized. This, after all, is exactly what their man, Obama, wanted.

Second, as far as technical finesse goes, if there were differences between the campaigns, they were negligible: Obama was more successful in conveying his message because of the ubiquitous and overwhelming media bias that sought to dehumanize his opponent.

As for Blaz’s third contention, it is superfluous to note Romney’s “ambivalence” toward his political fate, for Romney is a Republican and Republicans, as a rule, can be counted upon to act as if they are ambivalent toward the political fate of their party. However, of the three reasons that Blaz submits for Romney’s misfortunes, this is the only one that takes.

It is not, as many “conservative” media personalities insist, that Romney is a “RINO” (Republican-In-Name-Only). It isn’t that he is a “moderate.” And it certainly isn’t that he is “too far to the right,” as those in the Democrat-friendly press maintain.

Though more difficult to accept, the truth is far less dramatic, and much more simple, than any of these fictions.

And the truth is that Romney lost to Obama because he is just another typical Republican.

To see that this is so, we need only ask ourselves: Politically—that is to say, substantively, not stylistically—how is Romney any different from, say, John McCain and George W. Bush? For that matter, with the exception of Ron Paul, how is Romney any different from any of his competitors in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012?

The answer is obvious: Romney is not at all significantly different from any of his colleagues.

Not unlike the Bushes and McCains of the world, Romney generously pays lip service to the standard GOP slogan of “limited government” and its ancillaries. And, not unlike the Bushes and McCains, he favors a robust, activist military to reinforce America’s “exceptionalism” around the globe.

In other words, Romney, like his fellow partisans past and present, appears at best incoherent—Big Military, being Big Government, is radically incompatible with “limited government.”

At worst, he seems dishonest, talking one way out of one side of his mouth while talking an entirely different way out of the other.

Yet there is more.

We now know that the GOP has been hemorrhaging white voters for the last two presidential election cycles. While Romney needed 46 percent more of the Hispanic vote to win, had he garnered only three or four percent more of the white vote and he would’ve won comfortably.

Many of these same whites who are now cold toward the Republican Party weren’t always so. Having experienced what they rightly take as one too many betrayals, they have either sat out the last couple of elections or they have cast protest votes.

Interestingly, the disenchantment with the GOP that has overcome ever-growing numbers of the conservative and libertarian-minded is the mirror image of the disinterest of independents and others in it. For those on the right, Republicans’ rhetoric is fine and good; it’s their Big Government policies that are the problem. For those in the center and on the left, it is primarily Republicans’ rhetoric that frightens them.

Mitt Romney exemplified the contradictions of his party. Thus, their dilemma became his.

This is why Romney lost the race for the White House of 2012.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I personally could have come up with a dozen TV ads that would have gotten almost ANY Republican candidate elected against Obama.

Let’s read the theme of at least one of them...

[A'elian' nation]

“Romney’s biggest mistake:

Not playing Bruce Springteen’s song, “Born in the USA” out on the campaign trail at every stop.”

Very true and apt. I would have played the song and had a huge poster of OweBowMao not putting his hand over his heart when the anthem was played.

I wanted Romney to win because he was a CEO, and the country needed that kind of green eye-shade expertise even if he was a typical RINO.

[RIghtwardHo]

Romney lost because he was Romney and the GOP demographic is rapidly shrinking. It’s that simple.

[bassmaner]

Yup.

RomneyCare = Obamacare, so the base stayed home. The bloody primary fight didn't help, either.

I still maintain that if Romney had repudiated his signature legislation when he first announced for president and declared that if he had an opportunity for a do-over, he would have vetoed it, he would have gotten the base behind him early on and avoided the long primary slog. This would have given him a fighting chance, because he would have been able to be a better advocate for Obamacare repeal. Considering how unpopular Obamacare is, if Romney had truly been able to make the case for repeal he probably would have won.

[Nita Nupress]

. JMHO but the next presidential election will be fought under the same handicap unless the Republicans wise up and wise up fast.

They won't. They can't "wise up" and still retain their cushy power base. That would mean they'd actually have to do what voters sent them to D.C. to do -- be aggressive against Marxist Dems who have turned America into a banana republic.

Don't ask me for a solution; i don't have one. All i know is that I'll never hold my nose while voting again. And i may be wrong, but it seems that there are many, many conservatives who feel the same way, especially after the Romney vs. EveryoneElse fiasco they forced down our throat. Which means we may as well start another party if the GOP doesn't wise up..

And they won't!

[kenmcg]

“Why Romney Lost”
No guts, afraid to take on Bam, sat on a lead, listened to RINO @$$holes, kept quiet on Benghazi.

[catnipman]

“Let’s read the theme of at least one of them...”

1. Slow panning vids and pics of Detroit ruins with Vangelis’s “Blade Runner” opening theme music in the background with overlay of numerous grim economic stats read by announcer’s voice.

2. Group of armed Taliban sitting around their campfire at night speaking Pashu (or whatever) with translation captions. Lots of knee-slapping and great big belly laughs about U.S. withdrawal, rules of engagement making it easy to slaughter U.S. soldiers, laughingly enumerating all the benefits at Guantanamo if captured, all the help they’ve been getting from released Guantanamo terrorists, etc.

3. Much more hard hitting ads about “others built that”. Extremely angry and sarcastic remarks interspersed with brilliant accomplishments by individual entrepreneurs. In their own words if possible.

4. Hammer Obama on green cronyism, failed and bankrupted businesses, money given away to rich fatcat donors, abandoned factories, pics of abandoned windmill farms, etc.

5. One ad emphasizing the bowing and scraping and apology tour.

All ads would attack Obama’s record and all would stretch the truth almost to the breaking point. All would be designed to elicit powerful emotional responses, primarily anger.

Quite frankly, the material just wrote itself, but the Pubs didn’t want to be perceived as “mean”. Meanwhile, they were being torn to shreds by the entire Democrat/Commie media anyway, with not one negative thing said about the Obammunists. Not one.

[Windflier]

...half of his own party wasn’t in favor of his nomination.

Gee, I wonder why...

[Windflier]

Romney lost not because of anything HE did or didn't do...

I strongly disagree.

Romney never believed in our most fundamental American ideals, but was wholly in sync with liberal orthodoxy, e.g., his long held support for gay 'marriage', the AGW fraud, gun grabs, abortion, higher taxes, and gov't run health care.

Bottom line - Romney isn't a conservative, never was, and is a Democrat In All But Name Only, which is why a good percentage of the base didn't turn out to vote for him.

He lost to Obama because he's a milquetoast liberal with an R velcroed to his sleeve.

[GeronL]

Romney lost because he was a leftist pretending to be conservative and people did not buy it

[Windflier]

Romney lost because he was a leftist pretending to be conservative and people did not buy it

I'd peg him as more of a liberal, but yeah, he's bought into the same country killing ideology as everyone left of center, and that's why the winning margin of voters turned their thumbs down on him.

[GeronL]

I try never to use the term “liberal”, its not a good descriptor of the left.

[arthurus]

Romney lost because he is a Republican who ran a Republican campaign for Republican reasons. He did not expect to get elected. the bobdole do not run to get elected. They run to preserve the status quo.

[Windflier]

I try never to use the term “liberal”, its not a good descriptor of the left.

I understand, but the left hijacked and redefined the term 'liberal' so long ago, that it's been corrupted beyond all recognition now.

I think of a liberal today, as someone whose social outlook has been forged by incessant leftist indoctrination and acclimation. It's a person who's failed to make their own inspections and computations about life, which makes them a robot who follows their masters' programming.

Leftists, on the other hand, are a very different animal. They're the ones programming the Borg units to follow commands in lock step. They know exactly where their agenda really leads. These are the Marxists and Communists.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

The TRUTH about Myth Romney ("Celestial God-Child from Planet Kolob") ...

and his "enthusiastic" support for GAY Marriage ...


It was orginally posted at Free Republic by "SoConPubbie" on Father's Day 2012 ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2896191/posts



===========================================



Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders

(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)



December 20, 2006


The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133


Dear Governor Romney:


You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.


As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:


"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)


In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution: g[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)


Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.


Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).


Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.


The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)


The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)


In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.


"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)


We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:


"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)


We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:


"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)


We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."


As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:


"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."


"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)


We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)


We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute: gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."


In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h


Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.


We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:


"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)


Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.


We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.


This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.


In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.


We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)


You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.


Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.


We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.


We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.


We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.


We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).


Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.


Signed,

Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas

Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

Romney breaks pledge, stands to profit from Bain investment in Chinese surveillance company


Mitt Romney is still making millions from his private equity firm Bain Capital’s financial investments around the world.

But, in deciding to run for office, he’s been trying to shed those investments that conflict with his newly-found political principles.

For example, when Romney decided to switch his rhetoric and start talking tough towards China, it was reported that his financial advisers “shed all his investments in China, worth as much as $1.5 million.”


In fact, Mitt Romney once declared:

“My trustee has indicated publicly that he will make an effort to make sure that my investments to the extent possible and practical, will conform with my political positions.”

Once again, the facts conflict with Romney’s political rhetoric.


The New York Times revealed that Romney’s firm Bain Capital is still investing his money in China—this time, in a Chinese company that manufacturers surveillance systems:

In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques, and movie theaters from centralized command posts.

The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet. Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet.


Financial disclosure forms show that Romney still has a stake of “between $100,000 and $250,000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.” Tax Notes noted that Romney’s retirement agreement with Bain Capital “covers new buyout funds started by his former partners through February 2009,” which means “Romney receives income from profits interests in separate Bain funds that are still running.”

Not only is Mitt Romney’s investment directly conflicting with his pledge, it’s conflicting with his newly-found principles.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Romney attacked President Obama with the false claim that he’s “demurred” on China’s human rights record, allowing a government that “marries aspects of the free market with suppression of political and personal freedom” to become “a widespread and disquieting norm.”

According to human rights activists, the company that Romney stands to profit from makes the very tools that the Chinese government uses “to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents.” One Tibetan Buddhist Monk noted that such surveillance cameras “helped the authorities identify and detain nearly 200 monks who participated in a protest” in 2008. “There are video cameras all over our monastery, and their only purpose is to make us feel fear,” he added.

Standing to profit from such a company violates Romney’s past pledge to match his principles with his investments. But this is not the first time he’s broken that pledge. After promising to shed investments the conflict with his party’s positions on Iran, stem cell research, and other issues, Romney’s family still “kept some of those stocks” the conflicted “and repeatedly bought new investments in similar holdings as recently as 2010.”


===========================================


Does Mitt Romney's support of Gay-Marriage and Gay-Adoption also apply to his GOP E-RINO "Political Bedfellows" ?

The GOP Conservative $ 10,000 political "Question of the Day" ...

Who's Leg is "Tingling" the most in this 2012 photograph ... Pastor Santorum or Mormon Archbishop Mitt Romney ?






===========================================













"We have to frankly break the back of the secular-socialist machine, elect people committed to representing the American people, and then methodically rip the system apart."

~Newt Gingrich, 2012

====== NEWT GINGRICH'S GREAT 2012 CAMPAIGN SPEECHES ======





CPAC 2012 Speech -- Newt Gingrich, U.S. President Elect

CPAC 2012 Speech -- Sarah Palin, U.S. Vice President Elect



Nancy Reagan (1995) : Ronnie turned that Torch over to Newt



NRA Second Amendent Speech -- Newt Gingrich


U.S. Energy Independence in 2012 -- Speech

U.S. Energy Independence in 2012 -- Newt Gingrich


"America's Space Renaissance" in Florida !

Newt Gingrich -- Vision for America in Space Again



Why is Newt Gingrich So Angry ?

Newt Gingrich : South Carolina Victory Speech (2012-01-21)

Newt Gingrich : Christmas Day in 1776 George Washington's "Victory or Death"



Newt Stoutly Defends the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)

Newt Gingrich – Constitutional Removal of Radial-Liberal Federal Judges



Newt Slams an "Increasingly Radical" EPA



Newt Defends Israel and Shows how the Palestinians are an "Invented" people !

Newt Warns against the Proposed 9-11 NYC Islamic Mosque and Islamic Sharia Law

Gingrich Compares Radical-Isalmics Muslims To Nazis

Newt Gingrich On The Threat Of Radical Islam

Newt Gingrich – America’s Defense of Judea-Christian Ideals and Defense against Islamic Fascism

Gingrich: Aggressive Prosecution of Radical-Militant U.S. Muslim Groups



Newt Gingrich: Response to CNN’s John King “Divorce Question”

Newt Gingrich to Juan Williams: Americans Want Paychecks, Not Food Stamps

Gingrich BLASTS Chris Wallace for his "Gotcha" Questions at Iowa Debate



Newt Destroys Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Vis-à-Vis Killing Osama bin Laden



Gingrich: My Credential Is 4.2% Unemployment

Newt Slams Obama's Stupidity on the Keystone Pipeline

Gingrich attacks Federal Reserve (Bernanke and Geitner) Deception and Corruption

Newt Discusses Job Creation and Dismantling Federal (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)



Newt: No American President Should Bow to a Saudi King

Newt Gingrich: Super PAC Committee Is Washington's Dumbest Idea




=============================================



.

[dearolddad]

Romney lost simply because he got fewer votes than Obummer.

[OneWingedShark]

Thank you for posting that; it really helped in making this brochure.

[Lakeshark]

Had our nominee been a reasonably passable conservative, he (or she) would have beat Obama soundly.

I don't think there was a candidate in the race that could have won from our side. As much as I like Palin, I doubt she would have won either. Newt? He would have been dispatched in a heartbeat, likely a much worse beat down than Romney. Santorum? He would have barely gotten 42% of the vote. Bachmann? She couldn't even make it to the first cut of the primaries. Perry? He barely made it beyond Bachmann with all his money, virtually self destructed in the early debates.

The main reasons Romney lost:

1. A corrupt media who has taken sides, reports only what will help its chosen candidate. Benghazi, the economy, horrendous foreign policy, crony capitalist corruption (a combo of fascism and Marxism), fast and furious, ad infinitum ad nauseum unreported on. The debate "moderator" mysteriously having the quotes Barcky wanted her to say when challenged on Benghazi. Lots more, nuff said.
2. A corrupt vote. This is a far more serious issue than is being told. By itself it likely came close to swinging the election.
3. A corrupt president who audited donors, prevented the TEA party from gaining traction through the IRS and other forms of executive intimidation against conservatives of all stripes through multiple federal agencies.
4. A corrupt democrat machine that ran a ruthless, lying campaign to perfection without a watchdog media.
5. A Republican base that had enough people stupid enough to believe that a USA hating Marxist wasn't worth going to the polls to get rid of. Axelrod loved trolling conservative sites with his paid Mobies giving out the meme that there was no difference.
6. Romney himself was not a great candidate, a RINO squish who didn't see his opposiiton for what it was. Unfortunately as stated earlier, and I hate to admit this on 20/20 hindsight, he was the best of the candidates who ran. The rest would have done worse against all these other problems. I'm saying this as a strong Palin supporter who turned to Newt during the primary, and yes, again, it's 20/20 hindsight.
7. An America that is being fundamentally changed in its voter base. The "yout" vote has been totally taken over by the democrat/media/hollywood complex. Stupid, vapid, no knowledge of American history, its dream or exceptionalism.
8. An America that has slowly accepted that it's right to turn to government for its problems. It's difficult to beat Santa Clause and his free stuff.
9. A GOP that can't deal with the above realities.
10. A conservative movement that can't deal with the above realities.

There's more to say, an essay in each of the points made, several more points to make, but I can't hardly face saying any more without throwing up......:-(

[Windflier]

6. Romney himself was not a great candidate, a RINO squish...

Of all the points you made, this is the one that could not be overcome, and in my mind, the thing that was most responsible for Romney's loss to Obama.

I disagree with you on how Palin would have fared in the race. I'm convinced that, had she run, most of those who sat out the vote, would have enthusiastically come out to the polls. On top of that, I believe she would have attracted more fence-sitting Independents to our side.

Those are my views, based on everything I've witnessed in the last five years.

[Patton@Bastogne]

well done !

[Lakeshark]

As you well know, she's by far my favorite candidate, and Romney was my least favorite. I'd love to see her run, and win. She's smart, she fights, and she connects well with the base.

I honestly think the other factors might have denied her a win, though of all the other candidates beside Romney I think she would have ended doing the best.

I do think the tearing apart of the power of the TEA party, going after conservative donors and other organizations did more damage than you think. The media corruption is doing more damage than can be accounted for. Likewise the Santa Clause free stuff. Until we deal with those things correctly, or some kind of genuine renewal of the American ideal takes place, I don't think anyone with an (R) can win nationally.

[Windflier]

I do think the tearing apart of the power of the TEA party, going after conservative donors and other organizations did more damage than you think.

Where did I say that the IRS suppression of the Tea Party did minimal damage? I'm fairly certain that I never have. On the contrary, I fully appreciate the chilling effect that had on the Tea Party right's political organizing in 2012.

I honestly think the other factors might have denied her a win, though of all the other candidates beside Romney I think she would have ended doing the best.

Obviously, we're both simply speculating here, but I honestly believe that if Palin or some other strong conservative had won the nomination, that we'd have a different president today. I believe we would have seen the exact reverse reaction from the base, that we saw with Romney.

Remember that Obama didn't win this last election in a landslide. Despite all the Democrats' dirty dealings, it wasn't a rout. Even with a weak liberal like Romney, we really gave the left a run for their money. I think a better candidate would have tipped the balance in our favor and sent the Zero home to Chicago.

[Lakeshark]

It IS all speculation (sometimes a necessary thing), and I've simply come to a different conclusion. We have to change the ground if we expect to get rid of the current Marxist regime. Even better than just getting rid of the Marxists, would be replacing with a great conservative like Palin or Cruz. To do that with what we've become as a country, with all the problems I've mentioned will not be easy, it will be quite difficult.

I don't think we can do that without changing the ground, meaning we, as conservatives, have to take out the media, take away voter fraud, and take back the Republican party. Only then can we proudly present conservatism, have it seen for what it is, have it considered closely as a good alternative by those who are "independent" or "moderate". We have to persuade them, move them, and it's a long, hard, steep, cultural climb to do so.

[Cincinatus]

Not unlike the Bushes and McCains of the world, Romney generously pays lip service to the standard GOP slogan of “limited government” and its ancillaries. And, not unlike the Bushes and McCains, he favors a robust, activist military to reinforce America’s “exceptionalism” around the globe.

In other words, Romney, like his fellow partisans past and present, appears at best incoherent—Big Military, being Big Government, is radically incompatible with “limited government.”

This is pure B.S. There's nothing "incoherent" or inconsistent with favoring "limited government" at home (meaning a smaller and less intrusive entitlement state) while at the same time assuring American strength and power projection abroad. This was Ronald Reagan's attitude and has been the position of all responsible conservatives in American political life since George Washington.

[Windflier]

We have to change the ground if we expect to get rid of the current Marxist regime. Even better than just getting rid of the Marxists, would be replacing with a great conservative like Palin or Cruz. To do that with what we've become as a country, with all the problems I've mentioned will not be easy, it will be quite difficult.

I don't know, Lake. I'd like to see us at least try to sell conservatism at the national level again and let the people decide. I firmly believe that after eight years of hard left rule from Washington, the people are going to be more than ready for a return to the steady hand of adult leadership.

Like Reagan said, "Conservatism wins, every time it's tried."

I honestly think that the other side is far weaker than they appear. The media simply makes them look stronger and more omnipotent than they really are. Flip the White House to our side (and by that, I mean a true conservative leader) and watch what happens.

I'm actually quite optimistic about our chances in 2016. The momentum is on the side of the conservative right. That's being borne out by all kinds of reports in the political blogosphere and national media. The RINO squish contingent is rightfully being blamed for our terrible loss last year, and entrenched sell-outs in Congress are soon to be fighting for their lives in the next elections.

I really believe the pendulum's swinging back.

[Lakeshark]

I'd like to see us at least try to sell conservatism at the national level again and let the people decide.

Me too, I just don't think it's an automatic winner as it once was. When I say we have to change the ground, I mean we have to make the case for conservatism, not capitulate to liberalism. Btw, I think Reagan actually said it works every time it's tried, not wins.

We cannot win with the media the way it is, with the voter fraud as it is, or with the Santa Clause free stuff mentality with so many Americans as it is. That ground has to be changed.

There are genuine weaknesses in the Marxist/lib strongholds, but this will be no slam dunk. What they have on their side is very powerful and difficult to win against. Frankly I've seen lots of conservatives to be just as stupid as the GOPE squishes in their tactics and incapacity to win.

Reagan ultimately united the party, heck, he chose George Bush as his running mate because he knew it would help in that regard, and would help him get elected. You can't win without that kind of strategy. Conservative "purists" would divide us much as the GOPE has, forging us into a perpetually losing coalition.

[Windflier]

We cannot win with the media the way it is, with the voter fraud as it is, or with the Santa Clause free stuff mentality with so many Americans as it is. That ground has to be changed.

Lake, I agree with you that we have a lot of ground to make up with much of the American people, but I'm convinced that the good hats are still in the majority.

If we coalesce early around a solid conservative leader three years from now, I don't think the left will have a chance at keeping the White House.

Of course, the left wing media and the GOP-e are going to do everything in their power to ensure such a person doesn't get out of the gate. We'll have to be on guard for that, and not allow ourselves to be splintered and weakened like we have in the past.

It's a tall order I know, but our other options are a lot more unpalatable.

[Lakeshark]

I wish I could agree with you, but what I'm seeing makes it hard to believe we are in the majority any longer. And btw, the "purists" are every bit as much a loser group as the GOPE. Had they not been so stupid, Bambi would no longer be in power.

Along with you, I'm hoping for a solid conservative to become the nominee (Palin or Cruz would do just fine). Without the ground moving, or the grace of God, that will be difficult. Maybe too many Esquishes will run.....Christie, Jeb, Ryan, Rubio......splitting the vote. I could handle that. Then we will have to luck out and get Joe Biden for the dem nominee.

:-)

[Windflier]

I wish I could agree with you, but what I'm seeing makes it hard to believe we are in the majority any longer.

It's an illusion being purposefully created to wear you down and knock the fight out of you, Lake.

You know, Gallup has polled Americans for something like fifty years about the question of political ideology. I know you're familiar with the poll I'm speaking of.

They've asked Americans to tell them whether they consider themselves to be liberal, moderate, or conservative. Since the poll began, it's always come out the same: 20% liberal, 40% moderate, and 40% conservative.

Liberals are not, and never will be the majority. At least not in our lifetimes.

I know things look bleak right now, but with only a handful of people losing their jobs in Washington, and being replaced by true Americans, the entire political landscape would change. And I really think it's headed that way over the next few years.

40% of the electorate is thoroughly done with the GOP-e, and are angry enough that they're sharpening their pitchforks. Another 40% are scared to death of the next disastrous move by the administration, and lay awake at night wondering if they'll have a job, a home, health care, or even a country, three years from now.

Don't be cowed by the roaring mouse with the Che t-shirt on. It's a ruse designed to demoralize you. Yes, the damage they're doing is all too real, but like I said, sending only a handful of miscreants back to where they came from will set the stage for an enormous reset in Washington.