Romney did a fantastic job in the face of pure evil and cheating
Short of an even deeper recession in 2016, which may happen, maybe having a Hispanic as the standard bearer (Rubio) is the only way to win. Motivating a lot of non-liberal whites who stayed home to turn out and vote Republican could possibly do the trick. But I’m not sure anyone in the Republican party knows how to do that. It’s possible the Obama caricaturing of Romney as an evil rich guy was the reason they didn’t turn out - so just having someone else might be enough.
So is the author saying we ought to pander to those who are either openly breaking the law or those who know of people who are openly breaking the law?
If so, I say "NO!" Law breakers need to suffer the consequences of their actions, not be coddled and stroked and told it is ok to break the law.
But unfortunately, we might never see a good outcome to this problem because the Latino population HAS been coddled so long they think breaking the law IS ok and no one wants to pull the right trigger and deport them all back to wherever they came from.
For McCain, it was "his turn" at the golden ring, that was his attitude, plus when he said "Obama would be a good president if he wins..". How exciting was that?!... that made us feel content and comfortable.
For Romney, it was, "I turned the olympics around, I've been in business my whole life... Obama's a nice man but he's in over his head". Yah, that's the ticket, that'l grab the masses... it set my mind thinking of the wonder of it all -NOT-.
Nevertheless, I cast my vote for the R-candidates. In retrospect I think, why the hell bother... Let's see, there's always 2016... who will the the Pubbies put up then, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, or how about ol' Jeb, Jeb Bush, he's as well reasoned as any Bush I ever saw... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...
Tell the Republican party to go to Hell. Then through a third party or no party at all, lets put up a bright conservative candidate.
It still comes back to the dichotomy being fought out here in many threads. Since it is obvious that the Republicans LOST this election rather than the Democrats won it, did we lose because
1- we didn’t hew to true conservative principles, run a solid social conservative -pro life, anti homosexual, anti socialized healthcare; IOW embrace Tea Party values or
2- is the American electorate now firmly in the pro abortion, pro gay marriage and pro government subsidized healthcare side of things to a degree that those will NEVER change (any more than we would go back to segregation and depriving women of the vote) and ‘conservatism’ is going to mean strictly fiscal and foreign policy?
As I have always loathed the two party system, I am curious as to what happens; what is obvious is that running flip flopping RINO’s isn’t going to work. People will vote for the Democrat over the RINO, every time.
My personal prognostication is that some form of universal health care is inevitable and that abortion is never going to be illegal in all or nearly all circumstances, regardless of anything that subsequently happens.
Sorry, Mona....don’t buy your argument one bit...
Mitch Daniels would have been a loss too.
And it’s the ILLEGALS that I have a problem with and AMNESTY is not the answer....
“It’s very hard to make the economic argument to people who think you want to deport their grandmother.”
If she’s here illegally, she should be deported. Besides, Hispanics vote for Democrats for the handouts, and always will. They are determined to turn the USA into the same corrupt hell holes they came here to escape.
I think many Freepers deserve Obama after watching literally years of anti-Romney ads and editorials on the Free Republic. Many probably didn’t even vote I imagine, out of some misplaced sense of righteous indignation. You couldn’t click on one topic without seeing a Romney bashing ad and statement. The only really bad thing about an Obama win for many Freepers is that they won’t be able to complain about Romney anymore.
yeah here we go, the establishment's answer to this election will be to make the republican party even more liberal. It won't be long before Conservatives no longer have any representation in America.
A party that addressed the circumstances that make immigration (legal or not) a “problem” would not have to address the “problem” of immigration. These circumstances include, but are not limited to, government education system (primary through postgraduate), welfare support, the minimum wage, mandated employee benefits, unionism, and restrictive environmental regulation.
Above all, a genuinely free market for labor would make the employment of illegal aliens pointless, because there would be no cost advantage over employing a citizen.
Pish-tosh. Nobody has a proposal for a "workable reform of health care," because, just as with education, the only workable system in the long term is pay your own way, private-pay-or-private-charity. Rep. Ryan's concepts for addressing the issues of Social Security and Medicare would never have made it past the entrenched interests.
The bureaucratic welfare state cannot be reformed. It has to crash. It's an experiment that has failed, but nobody in the system can accept the obvious conclusion.
"Addressing" the immigration issue means softening the rules, lets be honest. But in order to cash in on that move republicans will have to compromise any principle involving the size of government, too, or risk losing all of these new voters to the democrats.
If Mona thinks that by such a softening will cause any significant portion of the potential hispanic voting block to suddenly be receptive to arguments for smaller, less intrusive government then I want some of whats in her hooka.