Posted on 11/12/2012 10:10:37 AM PST by jazusamo
Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment— nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.
The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many re-runs of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran for reelection, George H.W. Bush.
Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for reelection as himself— "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision thing" and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been counter-attacking against the foolish things being said.
This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics— such as ending "tax cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing" in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped.
Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Seriously.
It just requires work.
The school loves it. The students get pretty shocked by the time they're done with me. Several have come back to thank me for helping them get through it all.
But it requires work and most people, including most people on this site, aren't willing to actually do the work needed. Most people prefer to throw their hands up in the air or complain.
Others of us are out there actually educating people.
I have personally educated a number of flaming liberals on economic issues and watched their eyes go wide.
One thing I've discovered with the libs -- and in this town you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen of them -- its easier to convince them to go Libertarian than to go Conservative. You can't convert them on the social issues, but you can convert them on the fiscal issues.
” Barack Obama’s boast, on the eve of the election of 2008— “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”— can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again. “
Four years of HELL with a drunken coward as Speaker.
Will there be anything left to save?
Would you consider that a success?
No. One can say anything after the fact. Many do. It requires nothing. In sales I have heard many times sleazy salesmen come in to my customer *after* I've done an order and say, gee I could have done it for 25% less. Hell, they could do it for 75% less if they don't actually have to do it.
I don't tend to talk to 60+ year old liberals. These are Gen-X types. They never had the opportunity to vote for Goldwater.
The thing is, it can be done. People can be swayed. But as in sales, one has to ask for the sale and actually deliver. Otherwise the sleazeball gets in.
The point being that most Obama voters are open to an alternative. The messaging has to be correct to reach them, however. If they'd be willing to vote for a Barry Goldwater, then that opens a lot of possibilities.
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.