Very well said. Very well!
Posted on 11/07/2012 12:40:19 AM PST by kcmom
? So we didn’t get beaten bad enough last night?
Obama did fundamentally change the country. There is nobody the waiting in the wings that is going to change it back to way it was.
We as a nation have lost its moral compass. I don’t see that we will get back again anytime soon.
I have to disagree. I recall how Reagan had to buck the anti-war Liberals and his own Republican Party with everyone predicting his failure. Yes, the demographics and social attitudes have changed to some substantial degree, but Reagan did one thing that more than made up for what we see today. He motivated voters to go out and vote and vote Republican. In my preliminary look at the numbers, I find Romney actually had fewer voters than his predeceessors, but so did Obama. Obama actually lost twice as many voters than Romney. Romney actually improved his percentage share of the voters by 2% despite the reduced number of voters. I’m currently looking for the lost voters, and I’ve so far found about 1 million lost voters in New York and New Jersey for Obama, while Romney lost only 1/2 million voters in those two states. Looking around at some states not affected by Hurricane Sandy, I don’t find such dramatic losses of voters. So, it appears the loss of voter turnout is in part due to the storm damage and in part due to voter disgust and apathy with both candidates.
>>>>Obama did fundamentally change the country.
I prefer to think of it this way:
The new demographics — a vastly different electorate — changed the country. The election and re-election of Obama were the visible manifestations of that change.
The RNC allows Democrats to participate in it’s nomination process.
Now that doesn’t mean that the RNC has total control of this, but it doesn’t lift a finger to object.
It doesn’t support Conservatives. It does support moderates/liberals. Guys like Rove and others come out and carp at sound Conservatives, and support folks like Mitt. The RNC just smiles and acts like it’s an innocent bystander.
It’s my take that the RNC is every bit as much our enemy as the Democrat party is.
That’s my take also.
I’m for closed primaries also. This year they went to proportional delegates which I think was an improvement to allow more to participate before it was over - but it still didn’t last to my state.
I’d really like to see the schedule of primaries changed.
As for what the RNC does or doesn’t support, it’s important to remember how a member of the RNC is chosen. It is not an inherited peerage; if you don’t like who is on it, you change it.
And Rove is not on the RNC. He has power because he controls a great deal of money spent in campaigns. He got that control because of his success in campaigning, he will lose it when he loses campaigns. Campaign strategists, even the most successful, survive in the coldest of meritocracies.
The rank and file member is the voter. Their vote is their clout. That’s it. Other than donations and working for a campaign; but this is not party per se.
To have more clout, s/he has to get involved in the party itself. It is incredibly easy to begin. Local parties are, in my experience, strongly wanting others and extremely welcoming.
From there, those who show aptitude and work hard move - as they choose and their colleagues choose them. And so on up the ladder to state and national.
Voting has clout, but if you want to change the party, you have to get involved and get others involved. Otherwise it is complaining from the sidelines without ever being willing to take the field and do the work. It works like everything else, get involved, do the work, make the changes you want.
The RNC cannot publicly take sides on any primary election. Individuals can work for one candidate or another but an official of the RNC can’t take sides because the party has to support the winner in the end.
There’s no law to this effect, but has been the standard adhered to and wisely so. Priebus didn’t violate it in the primary but did in the general by not supporting Akin. I think this was most unwise and he will and should pay for it with his post and future in party leadership.
Except for this major fault, I think Priebus did a good job.
It’s a finite messy world, it depends on good people to stand up and do good things.
The “party” is comprised of individuals, its values are those of the individuals, its strengths and weaknesses are those of the individuals.
There isn’t this entity “party” that you can change and make everything great and perfect.
And creating another entity you call your new “party” does even less.
I sympathize with you if you’re in California. You’re hopelessly outnumbered.
There are deeper problems than party. A perfect pure party that never wins changes absolutely nothing.
Politics is a limited tool, it’s not going to cure a sick culture. Fundamentally, we have to change culture, education, society. Politics can go in tandem with this, but without it, politics just reflects a sick populace.
“Don’t blame Romney!”?
Why not ?
Anyway it is a fact that , after the first debate , he played the “nice guy” and adopted a softer tone.
After the Candy Crowley’s backstabbing , during the 2d debate , where he didn’t react , he didn’t make an issue about Benghazi , about islamo-terrorism and islamism and the famous “arab-spring”....
Dring the third debate Romney seemed to be agreeing with O. on his foreign policy
Exit polling indicates that this electorate was a D+6 electorate. 38 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican. I didn't think that was possible. I was wrong. Obama ran and won with an atrocious record, without anything remotely resembling a positive agenda for a second term, with a campaign based on lies, slander and hatred. That's what he ran on. And that's what he won on.And he had help he could always count on from RINOs and CINOs who refused to support Romney. It means that the next nominee will drift even more leftward, where the votes are. The same thing happened four years ago.
Damn good call, almost breathtaking. I wish I’d said that.
People here have forgotten how Romney was in the primary. He torpedoed Newt and later, Santorum, with negative ads. With Newt, Romney claimed that he hadn’t seen an anti-Newt ad before reciting it verbatim. He flat-out lied about the ad and gave the old “if you can’t stand the heat” response to Newt.
Romney was a flawed candidate, but many of us overlooked his flaws to try and stop Obama. The fact is, Romney had no core conservative convictions and lost. He was McCain with better hair and no military record.
A lot of flaws were overlooked, Romney’s, as well as newt and Rick Perry, attacking Romney for being a vulture capitalist, when Romneycare was a more legitimate target.
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.