Posted on 11/07/2012 8:55:57 AM PST by Trueblackman
If your premise is correct and the reason that Obama won reelection is because “conservatives stayed home” rather than voting for Romney (I don’t know any conservatives that did this but you seem to claim a bunch did) then it is these so-called conservatives who are to blame rather than the GOP establishment.
I don't know what "no compromise" folks you are talking about (or even what that means) but all the evangelicals that I know -- and I know a bunch because I am one -- voted for Romney and vocally encouraged others to do the same.
But the GOP is a kinder, gentler, more compassionate loser. I wonder why you didn't mention the Bushes? It's their wing of the GOP that has created this disaster.
I think he would have clobbered Obama, and it's spelled Reagan.
As well as this was the attitude of the mittbots here on FR.
We had a variety of candidates. None of them gathered majority support in the primary. Herman Cain had women issues. Newt was not liked by women because of how he handled his divorce. Perry was a RINO. Santorum was not fiscally conservative enough and was a phoney. The list goes on.
There appear to be lots of people here who will stay home if the candidate is not perfect. Well, I’m sorry people, but Jesus chose not to come down and run in the 2012 primary (and many would have found fault with Him too) and is unlikely to be running in 2016. Get over it.
As far as the GOP-e is concerned, after Dole, McCain, and now Romney, I’ve come to the conclusion that the GOP-e DOES NOT WANT the Presidency. Having the Presidency makes them accountable for results. They don’t really want to be held accountable.
Just having some House and Senate seats allows them to enjoy the perks of being an elected official, without the fuss and drama of actually having to oppose the Dem agenda. People who were paying attention in Madison Wisconsin during Scott Walker’s fight with the unions saw how ugly things can get when the Dems are actually opposed. The GOP-e just wants to hold their political offices and dole out money to their friends. They have no stomach for getting into an actual battle with the Dems.
The Whigs were the party of elite financiers and bankers of their day. GOP establishment pushed a Whig-style candidate down everyone’s throat. Learn the lesson of history, or suffer the consequences.
So.... now we know what the broader American populace wants. So it’s partly a matter of repackaging what GOP has to offer, while retaining the core values and traditions. One of the things GOP establishment has neglected is the “big tent” that Reagan spoke of - a sense of diversity within unity of purpose and intent.
We have 2-3 years to find a conservative evangelical Latina.
Hindsite is 20-10 FRiend........
“We have 2-3 years to find a conservative, evangelical Latina.”
I know a few, but they were saved. Could pose a problem.
I regard the evangelicals who didn't turn out as people who really don't care if the apocalypse comes (economically speaking), and the bigger the flames the better.
SO...now we have to live with 30 years of very liberal justices on SCOTUS...because some republicans have contempt for Romney. Not to mention Obamacare becoming permanent.
Candidate Romney won in the primaries — there was not a smoke-filled room, no secretive group that hand-picked him. And, as in 2004, the next candidate will be even further to the left, because Republicans learn very well that self-described conservatives prefer to lose than to support someone they dislike. And they dislike everyone. So screw them.
If your conclusion is right, I pity those republicans who have contempt for Romney. They just bought themselves 3 more SCOTUS justices in the mold of Kagan & Sotomayor & Ginsburg. Get used to 30 years of liberal rulings by court, including unrestricted abortions on demand at any stage including extreme late terms.
They also bought themselves permanent Obamacare, higher taxes and fewer jobs.
Romney was pushed on us by the Karl Rove Wing of the Party and I learned my lesson, along time ago with Gorge H.W. Bush! The last 2 times the party has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by pushing another Big Government Liberal on us as they did with McCain, we might have brought it with Dubya, but Mittens was not going to be pushed across the finish line by Conservatives like me.
Remember Perry entering the race just in time to suck up momentum from a "toe-in-the-water" Palin?
Remember his money-bombing of Florida with negative ads against Newt?
So if he couldn't even get a majority in his own Party's primaries, ...
Nice try though. You're coming across as a RINO or a GOPe in that post, which I hadn't suspected you of. Or do you have an explanation such as bitterness over the election?
I'm too tired or I'd write a nice analysis of the election. There are a *lot* of ingredients under the surface.
Cheers!
I think mormonism is a cult, but I enthusiastically voted for Romney/Ryan because the position of President is not the “spiritual leader” of the US. Regardless of whether “knowing a bunch is anecdotal” or not, the evangelical community as a whole was galvanized to replace Obama/Biden. All the hoopla about evangelicals objecting to Romney’s mormonism was just a bunch of media spin first ginned up by the GOP establisment during the primaries and then carried forward by the leftist media during the general election. Typical, the spin of the GOP establishment for their preferred candidate is then used by the leftist drive-by media against that candidate after the primaries are over.
You’re acting like the primaries in 2012 were different than in any other year, and it’s insulting to the intelligence.
The only RINOs and CINOs are people who pretend to be taking some high and mighty moral stance when in fact they may as well be on the Demwit’s Christmas card list.
People who refused to vote for Romney either voted for Obama (his constituents) or enabled his election, and no amount of blame-casting on the candidate — who didn’t nominate himself, obviously — deflects the blame from exactly where it belongs.
Going through them one at a time.
1) the primaries *were* different than other years, simply because other conservatives had their constituencies divided -- some groups held back waiting for Palin to join the race, some stepped on each others' toes, and the net effect was a splintering in which Romney (aided by carpet bombing with negative ads, of a type and intensity notably lacking toward Obama) gained a plurality, not a ringing endorsement.
-- during the convention, Romney pissed all over the Tea Party proper and the Paulites, who both responded by sitting out or voting for third party candidates.
2) The *real* problem is the mistaken sentiment that it was "The religious right" or "The Purists" or whatever which cost Romney the election. But this is a gross oversimplification; and analyzing it reveals the lie that the RINOs promulgate.
Recall Romney's strategy was to go "mushy middle" (like when in the 3rd debate he kept saying he agreed with Obama, and when campaigning he talked about "reaching across the aisle like he did in Massachusetts". This is the very *essence* of the "bipartisanship" RINO wet-dream, so beloved of the beltway pundits who tell us that if the GOP would "be reasonable" instead of going with wild-eyed fanatics like Palin or West or whoever, then the middle would flock to us and we'd win.
That was literally, explicitly put to the test this election.
And what happened? Well, some of the Christian evangelicals stayed away, as predicted; but the other important thing is, the mushy middle did NOT come rushing in to replace them (as was expected with raised eyebrows by the cognoscenti).
In fact, this election DISPROVED the RINO prescription in spades: if going for the middle didn't work during the Obama depression, and after Benghazi -- and according to the exit polls, over something as ephemeral as a political reach-around from Chris Christie during a two-hour photo op after Hurricane Sandy -- some 15% of Obama voters said in exit polls they decided for him on the basis of that, instead of going with a reasoned, principled, "sensible" RINO -- it will *NEVER* work.
The throngs which showed up at the last minute were the base, but not all the base.
And they were certainly not the mushy middle.
And this brings up the counter-example: SINCE, according to the RINO logic, in a Presidential election, one has to choose between the middle and the fanatical base, it would make sense to attack the base IF the middle turned out, and the base didn't, and that cost the election: but it is quite clear that large chunks of both the base AND the middle just *stayed home*. About 50.1% (or so) of the eligible voters voted in this election, which is a pretty low turnout.
The last time the GOP went with a conservative was Reagan, and he won landslides; G. H.W. Bush won on the assumption he would continue the Reagan revolution, but he was a cowardly squish; Dubya was a reaction to Clinton and barely squeaked by John F'ing KERRY.
Nice try, though.
The Paulites a.k.a. Paulbots aren’t Republicans.
The primaries were NOT different from other years. The FR claims about nearly candidate other than Romney was that he or she was “a stalking horse for Romney”. It’s been all nuttery all the time for more than a year. It’s only a matter of a bit more time before a replacement for rabscuttle shows up — R spent two or three years after the 2008 election posting anti-McCain screed, until inexplicably someone finally banned him.
Romney didn’t piss all over the Tea Party proper, there were those self-described Tea Partiers who pissed all over Romney, and strictly speaking it would be impossible to do that, since there is no Tea Party proper — the TP is and has been a polyglot group non-violently opposed to the rise of the single party state, or maybe they’re in favor of so-called hard money, or against this or that etc etc. Taxed Enough Already should be a reminder of its roots as a tax-cut (and spending-cut) movement.
Your number 2 (”religious right” “purists”) is a straw man argument — the anti-Mormon rants and hatred are nothing new around here, but the only relationship anti-Mormonism appears to have had was that the drive-by media here and there attributed resistance to the Romney candidacy to right wing and fundie bigots.
Evangelical turnout for Republicans was heavier in 2012 than in 2008, and the percentage was as high as in 2010. Romney’s faith turned out to be a non-issue, except for the same-percentage of evangelicals who apparently voted for Democrats or burned their ballots to protest the complete lack of interest in them. The Catholic vote was split down the middle between Romney and Zero, which is nearly an 8 percent improvement compared with 2008.
Thanks to a failure to show up, self-described conservatives — actually CINOs — helped gay marriage and pot legalization to pass.
Romney didn’t go “mushy middle”, Romney’s a moderate, which describes most voters. And there’s nothing new about that. Zero’s not a moderate, and there’s nothing new about that, either.
What’s ordinarily described as American leftist is mostly synonymous with the straight-ticket-voting Democrat voters. Since conservatives clearly don’t turn out to vote — the rationalizations they give are completely irrelevant — the next group of moderate candidates are going to slide even further to the left. Thanks for that, by the way.
The Paulites loosely caucus with the Republicans; they infested the Minnesota Primaries to the point that the State Convention instituted some strict rules to rein them in, which rules also restricted the Tea Party's "grass roots" approach.
The primaries were NOT different from other years.
Repeating this misstatement will not make it magically become accurate. When was the last time that the GOP nominee consistently polled at 30-35% in the primaries? That was a red flag right there.
The FR claims about nearly candidate other than Romney was that he or she was “a stalking horse for Romney”. It’s been all nuttery all the time for more than a year. It’s only a matter of a bit more time before a replacement for rabscuttle shows up — R spent two or three years after the 2008 election posting anti-McCain screed, until inexplicably someone finally banned him.
Oh, now that you mention it, I recall Rabscuttle: but he was a lone troll on one Conservative site. In the primaries you had Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, and Perry each trying to get the conservatives to coalesce around them; Palin was lurking and conservatives were reluctant to commit; and Romney took advantage of this: by the way, you didn't mention how Romney manipulated the primary rules in Virginia or one or two other states, nor how he carpet-bombed Gingrich and (I think) Santorum, violating Reagan's 11th commandment.
Romney didn’t piss all over the Tea Party proper, there were those self-described Tea Partiers who pissed all over Romney, and strictly speaking it would be impossible to do that, since there is no Tea Party proper — the TP is and has been a polyglot group non-violently opposed to the rise of the single party state, or maybe they’re in favor of so-called hard money, or against this or that etc etc. Taxed Enough Already should be a reminder of its roots as a tax-cut (and spending-cut) movement.
The convention didn't have West or Palin for example.
Your number 2 (”religious right” “purists”) is a straw man argument — the anti-Mormon rants and hatred are nothing new around here, but the only relationship anti-Mormonism appears to have had was that the drive-by media here and there attributed resistance to the Romney candidacy to right wing and fundie bigots.
You and I are talking past each other at this point: by "religious right" and "purists" I was evoking / demonstrating the GOP-e habit of attacking the party's base whenever they lose; I was absolutely NOT endorsing it.
Evangelical turnout for Republicans was heavier in 2012 than in 2008, and the percentage was as high as in 2010. Romney’s faith turned out to be a non-issue, except for the same-percentage of evangelicals who apparently voted for Democrats or burned their ballots to protest the complete lack of interest in them. The Catholic vote was split down the middle between Romney and Zero, which is nearly an 8 percent improvement compared with 2008.
Largely true: some evangelicals may have sat out so as not to vote Mormon; BUT the vaunted "moderates" who want "both sides to get along" somehow did not pull their weight -- thereby obviating the argument of the GOP-e that "we need to get away from the religious fanatics to win at the national level" (I suspect most of them have -- like Denny Hastert, Newt Gingrich, and Weepy Boner -- a mistress on the side, and likely enough, by corollary, either paid for an abortion or been nagged about it by their spare p*ssy.)
Thanks to a failure to show up, self-described conservatives — actually CINOs — helped gay marriage and pot legalization to pass.
Yes, these would be the "moderates" or "fiscons" wouldn't they? Because Romney neither led with, nor emphasized, his conservative religious principles as his calling card, nor his blueprint for governance.
Romney didn’t go “mushy middle”, Romney’s a moderate, which describes most voters. And there’s nothing new about that. Zero’s not a moderate, and there’s nothing new about that, either.
To me those terms are roughly synonymous: perhaps you would be kind enough to define how *you* define them...?
What’s ordinarily described as American leftist is mostly synonymous with the straight-ticket-voting Democrat voters. Since conservatives clearly don’t turn out to vote — the rationalizations they give are completely irrelevant — the next group of moderate candidates are going to slide even further to the left. Thanks for that, by the way.
I believe it was Limbaugh who noted that Humphrey would have been to the right of recent GOP Presidential candidates on most isssues.
And what do you mean conservatives didn't turn out to vote, when you point out the Christians did turn out, and the CINOs didn't? By definition, the CINOs are NOT conservative, right? So who are the "conservatives" who didn't turn out, and how can one tell? You can't "exit poll" those who stayed home...
Going to bed, I have a formal work meeting tomorrow.
Cheers!
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.