Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RC one
Nonetheless there is nothing moderate about Bachmann. Gives me hope for conservatism.

Reagan was the best at articulating the conservative message directly to the people and Michelle failed at that with her shrill attacks on Rick Perry.

Articulating the message is important as the article says, but my point is it is a combination of both being a great communicator and most importantly being a great conservative which Mitt being a career liberal was not.

It was therefore, I submit, not conservativism that was defeated, but instead liberalism that was defeated.

Mitt lost because he is a liberal. It was still a close race though, and if the conservatives who stayed home and the third party voters had voted for him there would've been more than enough vote to propel him to victory.....had he been a conservative.

Had the base been energized and the turnout high enough for a conservative to win that same turnout would have presumably also voted for the other conservatives on the ballot.

Since they stayed home the other races missed those votes as well.

My opinion only of course, but I did predict Mitt and the GOPs failure as early as last January.

I see the GOP only continuing with their move to the left by moving even further left.

What's that saying about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

21 posted on 11/09/2012 8:36:05 PM PST by Manic_Episode (Some days...it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Manic_Episode
Reagan was the best at articulating the conservative message directly to the people and Michelle failed at that with her shrill attacks on Rick Perry.

Brings me to my point....you simply cannot have so many running for the nomination, it is counter-productive, it should be no more than three. And also, kill the debates, they serve no purpose but to give late night comedians fodder for attacking Republicans. A candidate should get the nomination by building themselves up, not tearing down their opponents.

22 posted on 11/09/2012 8:38:46 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Manic_Episode
Mitt lost because he is a liberal. It was still a close race though, and if the conservatives who stayed home and the third party voters had voted for him there would've been more than enough vote to propel him to victory.....had he been a conservative.

if that were the case, than how do you explain the fact that Mitt took Indiana back after it went for Obama in 2008 and the TEA party backed conservative that usurped Dick Lugar lost a seat that had been held by a Republican since 1976 even though Mitt Romney won? Indiana obviously liked Mitt Romney and turned out for him. Mourdock? Not so much. Why is that? Because Mourdock is a nut- the kind of nut that taints us all with his nutty flavor. the same thing happened in missouri btw. go ahead and offer your counter explanation.

24 posted on 11/09/2012 8:53:52 PM PST by RC one (Akin/Mourdock-2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson