Romney Adviser Blames Bad Messaging

Foxnews.com ^ | 07 Nov 2012

[US Navy Vet]

Romney Adviser: It Was the Messaging By Robert Costa | November 7, 2012 Boston — A Romney adviser partly blames last night’s defeat on a weak message. “Turnout was the big problem, since we didn’t get all of McCain’s voters to the polls, but we really should have been talking more about Benghazi and Obamacare,” an adviser says, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Those are major issues and Romney rarely mentioned them in the final days.” The adviser expects Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist, to bear the brunt of the blame, but not all of it. “There is a Boston clique that will stick together,” the adviser says. “But blaming Stuart and the other newcomers means blaming Romney, so they will be careful. They know Romney always gave Stuart his complete confidence.”

[Graewoulf]

RINO File.

[D-fendr]

So...

Who is your candidate who would have beaten Obama this time?

[Yosemitest]

Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum.
Any of these Conservatives could have cleaned Obama's clock, and any one of them ... had the guts to do it!

[D-fendr]

Umm, Herman quit.

Palin never got in.

The rest couldn’t beat Romney, who couldn’t beat Obama.

Even on FR we couldn’t unite behind any one of them.

[Yosemitest]

They couldn't beat Romney because the voting public isn't paying attention to what's really happening.
Too many of them are worried about being nice, rather than solving problems.
Too many elected Republicans are "going along to get along", instead of standing up for principles.

So where are we in this "Fatal Sequence" of The Cycle of Nations:?

Bondage to Spiritual Faith;
Spiritual Faith to Courage;
Courage to Freedom;
Freedom to Abundance;
Abundance to Selfishness;
Selfishness to Complacency;
Complacency to Apathy;
Apathy to Fear;
Fear to Dependency;
Dependency to Bondage

[D-fendr]

Of course re-electing Obama keeps the nation on a terrible course. And yes, it reflects badly on a large segment of voters.

My point was we’re not the victims of some GOP conspiracy, or the establishment or elite or whatever. We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested.

We had a weak field; we need better candidates.
We had sideliners and third-pary vote wasters; we need more unity.

And we need to work on our long term problems in education and culture.

Playing the victim doesn’t help.

[SunkenCiv]

Well put (both your posts).

[Yosemitest]

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.
And you say, "We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested"
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?

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: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/voter-watchdog-group-claims-to-have-uncovered-absentee-ballot-fraud-in-florida/#ixzz2C8ecJ3ux

I think you need to grow up.
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)

[D-fendr]

So 62 percent voted AGAINST "Establishment Republican"

Unfortunately those were split among three, four or five other candidates.

My other point was we were not unified.

Weak candidates, lack of unity. Not victims of "the Establishment."

[Yosemitest]

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These "Establishment Republicans" bare being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

YOU SAY [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment.""
I disagree.
I ask you again:

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?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

[D-fendr]

Your logic has the victims electing their victimizers, Stockholm Syndrome in addition to victimhood and throw in a good dose of stupidity of being controlled by advertising.

You have very poor opinion of conservatives.

No, we were victims only of a weak field of candidates and our lack of unity in opposition to less conservative candidates.

[Yosemitest]

No, some of the Conservatives we elected, lied about being Conservative.
No more!
We're holding our Conservatives accountable, and "Establishment Republicans" have got to GO!
We can NOT unite with "Establishment Republicans" who are opposed to our CORE values.

READ IT AGAIN.
Read Jack Kerwick's article written May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican.
Jack Kerwick gets to the very heart of the issues that separate real Conservatives from those who would play us like pawns to be wasted for their agenda.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I ask you again:

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?

It was Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[D-fendr]

I find your posts redundant.

If you don’t like certain candidates don’t support them, recruit better candidates, unify behind them to win elections. If you don’t like people in some party positions, replace them. Get active, build coalitions, etc. etc.

This victim garbology is weak, insulting and not useful.

[Yosemitest]

Sometime aredundancy is what we need, to break through to the moron voters we have.

" If you don’t like certain candidates
don’t support them,
recruit better candidates,
unify behind them to win elections.
If you don’t like people in some party positions,
replace them.
Get active,
build coalitions, etc. etc."

I agree.
That's exactly what the Taxed Enough Already Party is doing.
But some of us, buried in bills increasing cost that Democrats have taken out of computing in the "Cost of Living" (fuel, groceries,etc,etc),
and just trying to decide whether we buy our insulin or our pay that "naturally sky-rocketing" electric bill,
... some of us, all we can afford to do ... is express our thoughts here at Free Republic.
And between trying to make ends meet, help with aging parents, and scrape up a little extra fund to cover the increase in real cost of living
not covered by "Establishment Republicans", Mitt Romney, and the Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! )
some of us just don't have much leisure time to "Get active, build coalitions, etc. etc."

Denying being a victim of "Establishment Republicans" enables "Establishment Republicans" to continue to abuse us.
It aids "Establishment Republicans" in our defeat,
and it insults our integrity to lie to us by telling Conservatives that it isn't happening.
WAKE UP !
The Republican Party isn't Republican any more. a
It's becoming Socialists Lite.

Let us remember ...

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

[Yosemitest]

Sorry, too many typos.
I gotta' get some sleep.

[D-fendr]

some of us just don't have much leisure time to "Get active, build coalitions, etc. etc."

You have enough to post pages of whines on an internet forum. You could do better than repetitive attacks on those you think are your oppressor - one of whom died six years ago.

[D-fendr]

I think we have both stated our position and views on this thread. I’m going to leave it and allow you the last word if you wish to.

I thank you for the discussion and hope we can remain passionate in our views even when they are contrary, and still be on the same side when it counts.

best wishes and may God bless you and yours...