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.
With half our population thinking the way it does I see only one way it can be corrected...A sudden and massive economic collapse followed by war. Perhaps the real United States would rise up from the ashes, perhaps not, but I don’t see any other way. If the last 4 years could not do it, then it won’t happen democratically or peacefully.
Stated, but not proven, FRiend.
The final outcome was predicted ... but ignored; and how those
who accurately predicted it ... truly, truly wish we were wrong.
Cheating and the woman vote won it for Obama. Now women can continue to kill their babies.
It is a good analysis, and there is truth to democracy’s inherent weakness. From its conception, it eventually does descend into a dominant-party system, 9 times out of 10, on the side of the left wing. They control colleges. They import immigrants. Eventually, they take control. ALL of Europe fell to the left shortly before the collapse of the USSR.
This eventually collapses itself, because welfare for all is unsustainable. It has a shorter shelf-life than flat-out communism. When this happens, you get situations where previously insignificant, extreme parties gain momentum and influence as they promise a solution.
It would seem that the only way to uphold sound spending, self-reliance, and basic moral values, is through an autocracy, but that itself contradicts the key right of representative government. See the problem?
If the GOP dies, conservatives will become like the Libertarian Party, irrelevant. Ultimately, it's a coalition of disparate interests. Currently, libertarians, small government ideologues, social conservatives, large corporate interests and small business interests have all made their home in the GOP. If each of these blocs goes off on its own, conservatism is dead as a political force.
It should have been Santorum. Romney was too much like Obama. Why change?
They love themselves more than America.
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.
Agreed, and if you think about it, Romney only had one gaffe (47%) in the entire campaign, which was off camera. Can you imagine if Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Palin, or Gingrich had been the nominee with this media? There would have been no true campaign because all we would talk about are the gaffes. What amazes me is with this record, Obama held on to everything he won except NC and IN.
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.
In 2010, the Dems took a shellacking.
In 2012, the Repubs took a shellacking. They lost several Senate seats that seems winnable. Both of their top-ticket candidates lost their home states in the presidential race.
Perhaps, it was Romney’s big win in the first debate. It seemed he went into coasting mode after it.
Perhaps, it was Christie’s big hug of Obama after Hurricane Sandy.
Perhaps, it was the seeming over confidence of the conservative talkshow hosts [ignore the polls!] and pundits — Barone, Rove, Morris — they were expecting a 300+ EV blowout. Well, there was a blowout, but that 300+ went to Obama. The pundits/talkshow hosts misread something badly.
Perhaps, it was that the worst president since Carter was as ‘worst’ as many of us thought.
Perhaps, it was the anticipation of more free stuff from Obama.
==
Pundits, columnists, commentators, talkshow hosts will have months to analyze.
Some already were claiming that the GOP needed to bring in more moderates. Well, other than possibly Huntsman, Romney was the most moderate candidate on the stage during the Republian debates, and he couldn’t bring in enough moderates to eek out a win.
==
Frank Luntz claims that the negative ads Obama ran had impact.
[If true, then Romney fell into the same trench McCain did in 2008 — trying to take the high road and ending up taking the road home. Recall all the ‘he looks presidential’ comments after each debate? Well, apparently he didn’t look so presidential to the voters.]
==
What went wrong?
This election and its losses are going to take a while to analyze. It does, however, signify that the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party, is in deep trouble — it can’t seem to sell its message. Either the message is wrong or the messengers are.]
Great post, thank you for your service.
This would have won the election for Romney and built a firewall against liberalism (but lost the Freepers): “All who are illegal will be made legal on Day 1.”
That's an excellent point.
If you’ll read the piece I wrote, you’ll notice that Romney gets hit for his timidity. He was timid on Benghazi, the Budget, obamacare, and hispanics.
My contention is that a fighter would have done better.
Who was at least willing to be a fighter of those that ran this time? Romney absolutely, totally rolled over on Benghazi. There is simply no denying it.
Perry had the guts to speak out about God, abortion, and Hispanics. Gingrich had the guts to speak out on just about anything. Even Bachman took solid stands on life and obamacare.
I’d have picked someone with guts. Romney was “lukewarm”, as the bible says.
So then, who is the right man when you have millions of wrong voters? The problem is so much deeper now because fools have become the majority.
That is the attitude that caused us to lose yesterday.
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.