Posted on 11/22/2012 10:31:36 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.
But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”
There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was “a weak, moderate candidate” is preposterous...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Well, I appreciate your honesty, I suppose.
If it’s all a moot point, why bother with political discussion or moral concerns at all?
You have thrown in the towel, which is obviously your prerogative, but it renders your opinions and recommendations meaningless, as least as far as I can see.
Old habits die hard I suppose.
I don’t know, running canidates like Akin and Mourdoch aren’t going to get us anywhere. I support those men for standing up for their beliefs, even though I do not agree with them 100%, I do admire their courage.
However at this point in time in the history of America, men such as them are going to be denied office, so I guess I am just saying there isn’t any point in a candidate even discussing that issue unless he wishes to be defeated as a result of doing so.
It wasn’t Romney, the voters changed and many who should have voted stayed home.
A Candidate is the one who has the job of getting a plurality of the vote.
Romney failed to do that.
So, it is his problem. He is the one who lost the election. And I think it was winnable, and I think Romney could have won it, if he had done a better job, a different job, and a more conservative job.
He approached the election as if everybody saw things logically, and with his point of view. But half the country has a different point of view, and couldn’t understand Romney’s position, and he offered them no concrete reasons to want to give him the job.
Being “not Obama” wasn’t enough, nor was being a “competent businessman”.
Read post 124, it says it nicely.
We just ran a guy who lost the PRESIDENCY against a sure thing, Akins and Mourdoch are not anything compared to that, besides, the establishment and Romney may have destroyed them like they did candidates in 2010 when they turned against them.
Withdrawing funding and campaigning against your Senate candidates is not the way to win.
Those local races were nothing compared to Romney’s nomination making Obama president again.
If Senate seats were so important to the Romney crowd who lost the PRESIDENCY, then Governor Palin would be winning public praise and accolades from them for giving us our only pick up in the Senate, (Ben Nelson’s seat), and giving us Ted Cruz, but I haven’t heard a hint of that.
LOL @ Romney was not the problem.
Given that Romney lost his election, I think he was the problem.
Beginning at the convention, he ran away from the TEA Party, and completely ignored Sarah Palin. Unbelievably foolish, given the Tea Party’s landslide victories in 2010 and Sarah Palin’s unmatched ability to rally the conservative base!
He conquered the Marxist in the first debate but went wimpy in the third when the focus was foreign policy. He needed Charles Krauthammer’s concise cliff notes to slam the Marxist on Benghazi and talk like a man ready to be a strong CIC.
Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and the other East Coast pundits need to wise up and stop pushing East Coast moderates, like Romney and Chris Christie.
The GOP-E needs to die or rid itself of old dogs like Rove, Gillespie and Cronyn. Moderates don’t cut it.
Conservative warriors are needed.
Is there anyone calling for a mother being required to give up their life for the baby? Am I missing something, or did you just throw that in?
That’s my position.
You will just have to find a way to deal with it. There are people on this website that do not want abortion legal in any circumstance at all, so yeah.
Yes, we did do that, and we will do that again in 2016.
As far as withdrawing funding from candidates, it is apparent that the GOP would rather lose than have certain people within their ranks, and so they did.
I don't believe that there is a republican political position calling for mothers to die in place of abortion, yet you are pretending there is.
I don't believe you, and think that you are a pro-abortion liberal throwing that in for dramatic effect, a lie for effect, to smear the pro-life movement, Christians, Christianity and morality.
As I told you, there are people on this website who do not want abortion to be legal under any circumstance.
Just because a circumstance may occur extremely rarely or even never before is no guarantee that it never will.
You can think of me that way if you want, I’m used to it. Because I want something to be legal means I want it happening all the time, everywhere even in the grocery store. Mhmm. Typical of people such as yourself.
It’s either you agree with me 100% or you are against me 100%, so that’s why you find yourself in a very small minority with no ability to implement what you want, not even .01% of what you want. Smart strategy there.
Have a nice day.
See post 131, there is no such thing in republican politics, yet in your attempt to insult and marginalize the pro-life movement you use the most sordid leftist tactic of trying to create a myth that republicans are calling for women’s deaths in regards to abortion.
That is an extraordinarily aggressive attack you are making in behalf of the left and abortion.
I have merely stated what my position is.
If you view that as an attack on your position, then that is your problem, and I would advise you to be less paranoid.
Believe what you want, because I am going to do the same.
Man, what a dishonest post.
You ignored the entire issue of you lying and pretending to be against a position that doesn’t exist, and when called on it, you try to pretend that the person saying that it doesn’t exist, and calling you on it, holds that position himself.
I love that you are exposing yourself like this.
From mere pro-abortion romneybot, you are now revealing yourself as a much more harsh and dedicated liberal, and abortion advocate, than your previous posts indicated.
By creating the lie of the GOP and pro-life position calling for the death of the mother, you reveal that you will lie cheat and steal to fight the pro-life movement.
As I told you, I merely stated my position.
I’m not lying or against a postion that doesn’t exist. Those are figments of your paranoid imagination.
My position doesn’t have anything to do with your postion, or the postion of the republican party, or the postion of Christianity. It is simply my postion.
It is you who is attacking my postion. I have simply stated that I want abortion to be LEGAL in three specific circumstances, and you are calling me a pro-abortion romneybot. You are rabid. You are incable of distinguishing details at all. As I stated, if I am not 100% with you, then I must be 100% against you.
Your inability to compromise with others is why you will never achieve anything that you want.
“By creating the lie of the GOP and pro-life position calling for the death of the mother”
I never created anything of the sort, you did in order to attack me with it. I’m not a fool, so don’t try to play your fool games with me.
As I stated previously, what I stated is MY postion, and you will have to find a way to deal with it, but I see that you cannot, which does not surprise me at all.
It is like lefties throwing in that they are against something, and including that preventing a return to slavery is part of that fight.
In your case, you are courageously fighting republicans who want to kill pregnant women.
If there isn’t any reason for it, then you do not have to worry about it. It will never, ever happen and it never ever has happened. Everyone is for it, no one is against it, no other postion other than being for the life of the mother exists, and there is no no reaosn whatsoever for us to discuss it, because the issue does not exist.
You just stated what I have been saying.
I hope this means that you will drop it from your described pro-abortion position, since you were just using it as a propaganda attack against republicans and the pro-life movement.
I am for abortion being legal in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
If that offends you, then be offended.
Goodbye.
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.