You Cannot Be More Liberal Than a Liberal

Sultan Knish ^ | 16 Jan 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

[expat1000]

Your position, and it is a common one, probably the most common, is that Obama did not win. We lost. I disagree.

BTW, in no way do I think it is/was a level playing field. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

Intellectual appeals require a decent intellect as a receptor. You seems to have a higher opinion of the electorate than I do. The best articulator in the campaign including all the spokesmen, hacks, consultants and what have you, Gingrich, never caught on with the undecided or soft Democratic electorate.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are reciting some specifically true facts but reaching wrong conclusions. The receptor problem is a receptor, but I realize that we only need to flip 2% of the receptors, and I know that we did this in 80,84,94,2010 on a national level. Scott Walker did this in Wisconsin on a state level, and there are many other examples as well. Again, I’ve just written 120 thousand words laying this out in a way no one can argue with, using examples from the past 20 years right up til today’s headlines in fact.

I also submit that for instance Newt, might have flipped 2% on a national level if he had been the nominee. Oh, it would have been an ugly fight, and Newt would have started out way behind. You know, just like Reagan always ways. Just like Jesse Helms always was. Just like the Contract with America was. True fighters are ALWAYS way behind at first....but their comebacks prove MY point, not yours.

Mitt and Ryan would have flipped 2% if they weren’t so damned intent on agreeing with Obama to appear nice. Actually, Newt DID flip the receptors in 1994. It is just not intellectually sound to say Newt didn’t make any difference based on a primary fight.

[Servant of the Cross]

Your position, and it is a common one, probably the most common, is that Obama did not win. We lost. I disagree.

I think this is the right question, and certainly up for debate. Did 0bama win, or did 'we' lose it?

I agree with CEW. 0bama was ripe for losing. Even he felt it. Romney ran a 'rope a dope' campaign after the first debate. He did not attack 0bama and even acted as if they were reasonably close on policy viewpoints on more issues than they weren't. This is incomprehensible! With the fiscal cliff, taxes and debt ceiling debates looming on the horizon, this wasn't even mentioned by Romney's consultant-driven campaign much less centered on it all day every day like it should have been. The battle of the Century: Big Government 'Life of Julia' vs. Small Government 'Life of Freedom/Personal Responsibility'?! Wasn't even mentioned.

IMHO, Romney and his elitist GOPe advisers lost it. In spite of all of their errors and terribly run campaign ... JUST 333,000 VOTES IN 4 SWING STATES WOULD HAVE GIVEN ROMNEY THE PRESIDENCY

That said, I also agree with your points about how the GOP should fight more aggressively and boldly confront wedge issues within the Dem base, like the Dems do to us. It's an extension of the messaging and 'articulation' of the conservative cause. And it is a war.

[C. Edmund Wright]

SOTC, amazing how we think alike sometimes. The book’s main thesis is that the BIG war is really the entire government centered (Julia) life and those who make money administering that versus the rest of us. ...and the battle for the GOP soul is merely a subrogative battle under that.

You’ll EAT IT UP.