Posted on 11/15/2012 6:53:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In an article published in 2001, Jude Wanniski, the author of The Way the World Works, noted that since 1896, only Republican presidential candidates running on “pro-growth” platforms have won. Republicans advocating “austerity” have invariably lost. With the defeat of Mitt Romney, the election of 2012 continued this pattern, with one addition. Republican presidential candidates offering clueless confusion also lose.
Democracies tend to evolve two political parties, a party of economic growth and a party of income redistribution. If a credible plan for economic growth is offered, the people will vote for it, provided that it does not involve crushing the poorest and weakest members of society. If not, they will vote for income redistribution, in an effort to assure that everyone survives so that they can enjoy the fruits of economic growth, if and when political leaders emerge who understand how to produce it.
If the American electorate decides that income redistribution is the best that is available during an election season, they will vote Democrat. The Democrats long ago nailed down the redistribution (a.k.a., “fairness”) position. This leaves the Republicans the choice between being pro-growth (while also being non-threatening), or losing. In 2012, Mitt Romney and many, many other Republican candidates collapsed into clueless confusion and lost.
Mitt Romney became the Republican nominee because Herman Cain, the only true pro-growth candidate in the primary race that was actually competent to do the job of president, self-destructed over personal issues. However, once Romney had sewed up the nomination, supply-siders started projecting their hopes onto him, and ignoring what he was actually saying and doing.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
But Romney was tough on China and immigration (remember the exchange with Perry over being heartless?). Not surprisingly, asian-Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported Obama.
Exactamundo!
Despite the sarcasm, you might actually be right.
Obama has one thing that Romney doesn't: a very polarizing personality. The apparent abuses of government are causing people to wake up, this partially explains the dismal voter turnout (less than 50%) -- on a Romney-win many people would think "I've done something" and go back to their slumber, doing nothing to actually impact governance. (There's even the chance that socialist policies that wouldn't get past the fairly-impotent Republicans in Congress would get past for Romney.)
That is how a Romney-win could have been worse.
Bump
fulv
you helped a commie stay in office with your blasted “principled approach” Is daddy going to rescue you now?
I supported Romney after Palin decided not to run, I know.
We need a pro-American party.
So you must be happy with the election results. The president we re-elected is not a Mormon. And being a radical leftist, he's not really a liberal, either.
I personally thought Mitt’s campaign was a vast, vast improvement over those run by previous corpses like Dole and McCain.
That being said, he missed the ball in several key areas.
-Presumed that the electorate would understand why Obama’s economic philosophy can not work. If you are not old enough to remember Reagan or the fall of the Berlin Wall, odds are you don’t have a clue about this.
-Never ever uttered the phrase “I’m going to get government off your backs”. This would have helped to bring the Ron Paul Libertarians on board, and been a welcome signal to a nation growing weary of bans on light bulbs and 32 ounce fountain drinks.
-Never specifically called Obama out for buying votes with goodies paid for by the rest of us.
-Never “went there” on Benghazi
You want someone leading America who belongs to this evil cult?
What does his religion have to do with him taking the seat away from an avowed socialist and enemy of the United States of America?
Again, and for the millionth time, conservatives are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. It gets us nowhere as we realized with the Bushes.
> the fact that he belongs to a man-made cult that until the mid 1970s refused to allow blacks full membership
Really? I guess you have never read the Old Testament and observed how many archaic rules we have decided were downright unreasonable.
If you are not a left wing troll trying to make Conservatives appear ignorant, then what is your real goal?
If I can take "daddy" to mean God, then I can say that He rescued me about two thousand years ago... so then yes, there is absolutely no need for me to compromise my principles.
Yup. An easy 32 EV, right there, whizzed down their combined legs. Hard to argue any ticket that can't even parlay "native son" status into credits for the win column "deserves" to win anydamnthing, really.
Mitt offered a decent enough economic platform towards the end. It was half a loaf. In the social policy department he was less inspiring (but so was Barack, and there was expectation that Mitt would be more amenable to popular pressure, which would be different in Washington than it was in Massachusetts).
In hindsight, Mitt needed to have gotten an earlier start in vigorous campaigning, and needed to be careful not to equate traditional indicators of support, like rallies and signs, with voters going where and when it counted. Mitt was the nice guy who finished last. I still believe he would have won a hypothetical compulsory plebiscite. But the give-a-damn factor matters and the GOP did not rouse it as well as the Democrats did.
It’s a question of stewardship of your civic prerogatives, and sincere Christians have sincere disagreements. If you did the wrong thing for the right reason, God will more easily forgive than if you did the right thing for the wrong reason.
great, you helped destroy this country. go away.
I am a believer in God and Jesus the Son of God, too.
Romney was raised in Michigan and lost that state. He was governor of Massachusetts and lost that state. He has a second home in New Hampshire and lost that state.
And, where is this severe conservative choosing to make his new home? California, of course.
Romney wasn’t even on my radar during the primaries; but when he turned out to be the only viable alternative to the America-hating Marxist, I didn’t think twice about who I would vote for.
Romney,
McCain
Dole
Bush I
Dewey
ALL deserved to lose. The GOP establishment likes candidates like them, who have no vision and stand for little.
Heck, Romney chose “Believe in America” as his campaign theme. Obama could have chosen that. Most of the rest of Romney’s campaign had cutting edge messages, like “I’ll create more jobs.” “The President is a good man who tried, but didn’t get it done” “There should be fish in the rivers” “Your future is ahead of you” [oh, wait, the last two were Dewey].
Reagan ran on important themes. Romney tried not to make mistakes or offend anyone by not taking risks.
Reagan stood for things. Romney wanted to be POTUS.
I take no delight in Zero winning, but Romney didn’t deserve to win with such a lousy campaign - conducted by people HE chose and supported.
It wasn’t an election...it was a theft...we wuz rolled...and so were the CountryClub Republicans..by the Chicago thugs.
>conservatives are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils
Tired maybe, but we still choose the lesser while you stay with the greater evil.
You obviously won’t be happy until a mirror image of yourself is the candidate. Then you can have your own Caligula.
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.