Posted on 11/10/2012 4:14:47 AM PST by Kaslin
Really, so the GOP should ignore 49 percent of the population in 2011?
You do realize that only 25 percent of Americans support the present status quo of no restrictions on abortion - the position of the democrat party?
Why shouldn’t the GOP be the party of the 75 percent of Americans who do support abortion restrictions?
Of course you couldn't make your point without hurling insults, but OK.
First: Idiots voting is a terrible way to decide anything. In a final-choice election to fill a Federal or state office, especially with two and only two candidates running, I suppose it's at least as good as divine appointment or something else. But to NOMINATE one of many, with the BASIS that this is the strongest one, and the GOAL of winning that later, idiots voting contest? Absurd.
Was it the "idiots" fault that Bachmann, who was winning, gaffed herself out of the race? Or that Cain, who was winning later, either couldn't control himself if the accusations were true or caved under false and easily refuted accusations otherwise? Or that Newt had a woman problem? Or that Freepers so readily attacked each other's Conservative choices that when it was finally over, Romney was the only one left?
And how do you propose to Constitutionally prevent "idiots" from voting?
Second: Therefore, in a perfect world, I would do away with primaries. They are a novelty, historically, and they have not served us well. Since I can't do that, I would: ELIMINATE (or not allow the results of) "open" primaries. They can do nothing but harm. RESTRICT voting in a GOP primary to REAL (as opposed to enrolled) Republicans. A real Republican is someone who is active in campaigns, who signs or otherwise acknowledges the platform, or who has donated to the party in the last two election cycles. At a MINIMUM, require party registration for the last four years, consecutively.
I actually agree with some of that.
Third: Require 2/3 of elected delegates, and 2/3 of appointed delegates (Governors, Senators, and Representatives, State or Federal) to concur in a nominee. The role of the "House of Elected Officials" is to bring the experience of winners into the process.
That might be a good idea, but remember that those making the appointment will have been elected by the same "idiots" you lamented above.
Your assertion that Romney (who I love, and for whom I am very sad about the bum rap he is about to get) "won" anything decisively is absurd. More than 3/5 of voters in contested primaries, all across the fruited plain, wanted someone else.
Talk about polishing a turd. "Someone else" got 3/5 according to your figures. Divide that up among how many candidates, and they were all beaten decisively.
Also remember that when it finally came down to Romney and Newt, Romney still won handily.
THIS IS A BAD SIGN FOR THE FALL. Even if Romney had WON, rather than LOST, 60-75% of primary voters, IF THE ANTI-ROMNEY VOTERS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED, THEN HE WAS A POOR CHOICE. It appears that this is exactly what happened.
And what is you solution? "In summary, the GOP nomination process needs less "democracy", not more (I don't give two sh*ts what the Democrats do), and it MUSTMUSTMUST make it impossible for a plurality (another word for minority) to choose the nominee."? How do they go about doing that? I like you idea of getting "2/3 of appointed delegates to concur in a nominee", but how would that have resulted in a nominee other than Romney?
Romney won the primary. He wasn't my choice, but when it was over, he was who we had to go with.
Hey :) Good seeing you again. I’m doing well, yourself?
Yes, no more ostrich head in the sand / bunker mentality re: polls and unfavorable evidence. I’d say the GOP needs to get way more data-driven, as well as start leveraging science and information as the Dems have apparently been doing.
There’s a way to craft a winning platform from all this wreckage, but it’s going to require thinking creatively and coming up with a coherent vision.
Confronting the media was not done by the candidates, they are the ones that can penetrate the media control (maybe). For example look at the way Newt parried a question about abortion by asking why ‘there are never questions about partial birth abortion’. If Akin and Mourdock had done the same it could have avoided some serious damage. Romney could have done the same about fast and furious and other topics. I don’t know how he avoided learning anything from Gingrich.
Trust me on this one. I've lived up there and I still do business on both sides of the border. Canada has a much better business climate than the U.S. right now ... by a wide margin.
That is a good tactical list, but until conservatives regain control of the public education system, we are lost. For the past 40 years, most public schools do not teach our history or the reasons the nation was founded, the virtues of freedom and liberty, and why free markets create the greatest prosperity and wealth for all. Instead schools teach kids that America is evil, the cause of the world’s problems, that all businesses are bad, and government is good. This leads to an electorate expecting freebies from the government. As Rush said, a nation of children will vote for Santa Claus every time.
This has to be a multi-decades effort, but it is going to be very hard to wrest educational control from the leftists / statists. It seems that freedom-oriented people do not go into education and, for some reason, the field attracts people enamored with statism and totalitarianism.
GOP isn’t gonna do anything with out We the People jabbing them with a cattle prob
The Republican “Leadership” is right next to all the wealthy, patrician Democrat “Leadership” at the DC watering holes..
thos eguys have so much..they have no NEED of their Constitutional Freedoms to provide for themselves and family.
This is a job for We the People.
The only thing that will make DC sit up and take notice is the threat to its revenue stream...and the bipartisan good old boys, whose own cash flow indirectly requires that stream, will then sit up and do something about it.
if We the People are to be disenfranchised .....We have no further obligation to pay Federal taxes. And we are the only ones paying them!!
“Direct” disenfranchisement refers to actions that explicitly prevent people from voting or having their votes counted, as opposed to “indirect” techniques, which attempt to prevent people’s votes from having an impact on political outcomes (e.g., gerrymandering, ballot box stuffing, stripping elected officials of their powers).
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm
And by not challenging it, fighting it..and getting in their faces about it...we grant permission for it to continue....and even worse...increase the probability of needing to resort to the cartridge box for resolution.
I didn’t say the GOP should be pro-abortion. Only that it needs to moderate its position—the 2012 platform said abortion should be illegal, no exceptions. Clearly that’s not a winning argument to 80% of Americans according to this poll; however, it is also true that 75% of Americans don’t support unrestricted abortion-on-demand either. So, like I said, carve out a position on the issue that’ll be reasonable to as many Americans as possible.
I'll tell y'all exactly what's happening here, folks. More and more Americans are simply "checking out" of a lot of things in life ... politics, business, etc. I had a long conversation with someone in the insurance business a few months ago, and I was amazed at some of the things he's come across in his business over the last four years. He told me stories of people -- responsible, respectable, capable professionals -- who have simply decided that they don't care about things outside of their control anymore. They've cancelled insurance policies, stopped contributing to retirement plans, scaled back on their business expansion plans, and just generally stopped giving a damn about a lot of things. Remarkably, he says almost all of them seem to be living much happier and fulfilled lives right now.
This election wasn't decided by millions of voters who didn't like Romney or the Republican "message." It was decided by millions of voters who just don't give a sh!t which @sshole lives in the White House on any given day.
“Stand down. Let the dems fail without any obstruction.
Shortest path to victory.”
I’m in agreement on this strategy, as long as we can insure the Dems will be held accountable.
Its the approach we took with Obamacare.
You help to advance the me me that this is the republican position. Romney disavoyed the the Senate candidate that stepped in the media minefield. The republican position is with the 52 percent but this is one of the medias most powerful weapons. Newt Gingrich needs to give seminars on how to turn abortion questions into partial birth and infanticide answers.
How many people know that the democrat party supports unrestricted abortion?
Dunno. My guess is: not very many.
Not true that the platform said this. You are falling for the media spin. What does the Declaration of Independence say?
You didn’t put Obama in the MOST AWFUL category? Honestly, can you think of a MORE awful candidate in the history of the Republic? A communist agitator, no work experience, no record of any accomplishment, consummate liar, and clearly not very bright. He’s nothing but a tough gay Chicago / Cook County race-baiting political thug who happens to benefit from a dark skin tone that appeals to white guilt and reads words others have written in a manner that a lot of people find appealing.
Seriously, Romney was better on every single measure, but he lost. It wasn’t our candidate; it was a nation that created an electoral coalition of children, minorities and women who want to keep free stuff and the baby-killing machine rolling along.
He needs to start a radio show translated into Spanish.
Get it on in all the southwestern states and every other state with a sizable Hispanic population.
No we need to figure out how to get more then 100% turnout in some polling areas. Then you get to win.
Agreed. I have always believed, and still do, that Herman Cain was the best candidate in a weak field for exactly this reason. His inexperience and poor judgement regarding his staff sunk him, I get it, but he would have had the best chance to beat Obama. Why? Because, despite the "radical" nature of 9-9-9 he had charisma. His message was simple. He was funny and energetic and he could inspire.
We have an awesome bench for 2016 compared to a very weak bench for the Dems. I am very confident we will start to turn this around in 2 years. Of course this assumes that we stop nominating idiots who make stupid that sink their campaigns. I mean if there is a dumber politician then Todd Akin I have yet to meet him, and following that fiasco Mourdock's comments are nothing short of bewildering.
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.