Posted on 11/07/2012 3:23:45 AM PST by xzins
I knew last week that it was over, and I knew it because of Benghazi, the very issue that had me reluctantly put my check mark next to Romney's name, because I couldn't conceive that a Romney administration would have abandoned the lives of our heroes to the hatred of Al Qaeda.
Benghazi, Budget, BamaCare, Barrios....the 4 B's.
During the debates, conservative commentators liked to talk about Bayonets and Battleships, but four other B's explain Romney's loss and why he was the wrong man to carry the flag.
Benghazi was a window of opportunity presented to Romney that he was too timid to address. Some say that Romney decided after the first debate to just run out the clock. Well, events intervened and Hurricane Sandy made running out the clock impossible. (Give Governor Chris Christi an assist with mother nature's efforts.) In reality, though, discussion of Benghazi by Romney could have continued throughout Sandy, but Romney never again picked up the one issue that was moving the polls at that time. Once Candy Crowley slapped him in debate #2, he backed off. It was an absolute scandal, and no one ever asked Obama where he was at the time the live feed from Libya was playing. Romney lost for lack of sand.
Romney muzzled Ryan and the budget debate never was held. The very reason he was called courageous for his Ryan pick was the very thing they shut Ryan down on. Ryan was reduced to waving his arms at Romney gatherings. Platitudes of balancing budgets were common, but there was no stomach for discussing the real dangers affecting America is the budget was not controlled. Tepid describes the Romney approach to the budget.
As predicted, Romney never addressed the very issue that brought about the Tea Party. ObamaCare was simply not an issue for Romney. He was vulnerable due to his own support of RomneyCare, parent of ObamaCare, so he really couldn't attack the idea of big government health care. When it came to ObamaCare, Romney was simply the wrong guy to carry the message. Romney was AWOL -- as predicted during the primary season -- on ObamaCare.
The barrios of America rejected Romney by a huge margin. Forty-four percent of Hispanics supported George W. Bush. Romney garnered a meager 28%. Sadly, most Hispanic Americans have religious reasons to support a more conservative view of life and should naturally fall into the conservative camp. Anyone who has ever watched a migrant worker picking fruit in a field knows that a huge number of Hispanices do not shy from hard work. Sure there are those who would rather live on the dole, but isn't that the case with every demographic? Romney shot the one messenger who had a message that obviously appealed to Hispanic Americans, the governor of Texas. Like Perry or not, the same as George W. Bush, Perry had to get elected in a highly Hispanic state, Texas, so his sensibilities on the subject of the Hispanic vote should have been heeded.
Conservatives must find the inner resolve to admit that targeting Hispanic illegals makes Hispanic legals worry about their inalienable rights of privacy, search and seizure, and equal treatment. Another bitter pill for conservatives is that Hispanic legals are more compassionate toward Hispanic illegals than is the average conservative. With significant Hispanic populations in most of the swing states, conservatives should have noticed that Perry had found a balance that elevated him to the governor's seat in Texas AND permitted him to apply both economic and social conservatism throughout his state. The bottom line is that inalienable rights SHOULD BE a conservative issue. And while "compassionate conservatism" earned George Bush enmity with many conservatives, it also earned him the White House. Conservatives need to rethink the Hispanic vote and acknowledge that concerns about individual inalienable rights trump immigration purity in their minds.
It was too late for Romney, though. He had already taken a hard line stance to win the primary debate with Perry, attacking him mercilessly along with Michelle Bachman. He launched another barrage against Newt Gingrich on the same subject. Neither Romney nor Bachman was experienced in winning the Hispanic vote. Perry was inexperienced in winning primaries. In this instance, Romney lacked the determination of George W. Bush to push back against the poorly aimed concerns of base conservatives.
Romney's loss was predictable and was predicted. The reasons will open a huge debate. The four B's explain much: Benghazi, Budget, oBamaCare, and Barrios. In each instance, whether due to timidity or misguided policy, Romney proved to be the wrong candidate. Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong message.
I’m stupid. You’re smart. I was wrong. You were right. You’re the best. I’m the worst. You’re very good-looking. I’m not attractive. < /HAPPYGILMORE>
Todd Akin and his ridiculous remark about rape.
That put our side on the defensive with women and we never recovered.
We only lost by a little but we lost big with women.
Good morning, FRiend. I wish you the best.
Wrong. It was the changing demographics of the United States.
Dick Morris just said that he predicted a Romney landslide because he thought the electorate would return to 2004 levels. So did I. It didn’t. This electorate is here to stay, and (for once), Morris is right. Republicans will NEVER win with the electorate as it is. It’s not possible.
Young voters, Hispanic voters, black voters, and single women voters are larger segments of the electorate now, and they all vote against us.
I REFUSE to compromise the basic principles of the party by the amount we would have to so that we can “snare” these voters. We might as well just have the Democrap party, rather than two Democrap parties.
I’ve said already. We are the Copts. A minority living under the tyranny of the majority.
since you weren't part of the solution, you're simply part of the problems..
Romney ran a superb race but he couldn't undo the Soros vote rigging machines and the other fraud....
you can't have your cake and eat it too...either Romney wasn't conservative enough for you or Mia and Allen were too conservative....
figure it out sometime....
Todd Akin was the single biggest factor... after the media of course
His remark was about abortion
and he was right pretty much
The gun-grabbing architect of the blueprint for Obamacare, who lost to the guy who lost to Obama the last time? Are you kidding me?!
I'm sorry, the Republican Party, and this entire country, is hopelessly lost. We're officially at the "brace for impact" stage of things now, and nothing is going to stop it.
The GOP will never win the Hispanic vote...no matter how much Illegal Alien Amnesty you give. McCain did not get even 1/3 rd of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and he authored the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill in 2007
An Illegal Alien’s rights end when his rights violate the rights of those legally here....that is what real inalienable rights are all about
You will not beat the Dems with more Liberalism
Another concern: Voters blame Bush for the economy. Repubs never disavow what he did wrong (push programs like the prescription drug thing) that increased the deficit or the problems that liberals created (affordable housing). Obama supported both of those causes of the problem.z
In short, no Republicans tried to inform the public.
“Young voters, Hispanic voters, black voters, and single women voters “
The Free Sh*t Army
West , Love , Allen, all lost too! This country is done.
Attacking each other isn’t going to help.
I really do think it was voter fraud.
I can see how the morons would vote for O (though don’t agree) but the Senate races? And some House seats?
I agree with you - Romney was a good candidate. The problem is that he didn’t simply run against Obama - he ran against the media. If I learned anything from this election it was to send a check to Free Republic, support Rush Limbaugh, etc. We can’t win elections without first managing to overcome the corrupt media machine.
Now it's time for the GOP-E (and the country) to reap the whirlwind.
At the same time, I see your point. I think conservatives need a wake-up call about what is possible. We need to nominate a straight-up conservative ticket in 2016 and see where that takes us. If we re-run 2008's complete wipeout, it will lead the more intransigent among us to understand that you can't go home again.
Politics is the art of the possible. What is possible in red states is different from what is possible in swing states. If we require multiple shellackings at the polls to accept this basic principle, so be it.
Am I being defeatist? All I can say is that the Founding Fathers understood that democracy is a death spiral. Once the property requirement was removed from the franchise, ambitious politicians began buying indigent votes with other people's money. Reagan's failure to dismantle the Education Department one year into its existence shows that the death spiral doesn't stop even for the nimblest of politicians. Ultimately, we, the people, have pointed a pistol at our collective head. Every program the Dems gin up gets us in deeper. I just want to stand athwart history, yelling stop. Unfortunately, it just keeps hurtling into the abyss.
It sucks, but everything played out the way I thought it would. Run two liberals against each other and the more liberal one will win.
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.