Vanity: Romney: As predicted, He Proved to Be the Wrong Man

vanity | 7 Nov 12 | Xzins

[xzins]

I knew last week that it was over, and I knew it because of Benghazi, the very issue that had me reluctantly put my check mark next to Romney's name, because I couldn't conceive that a Romney administration would have abandoned the lives of our heroes to the hatred of Al Qaeda.

Benghazi, Budget, BamaCare, Barrios....the 4 B's.

During the debates, conservative commentators liked to talk about Bayonets and Battleships, but four other B's explain Romney's loss and why he was the wrong man to carry the flag.

Benghazi was a window of opportunity presented to Romney that he was too timid to address. Some say that Romney decided after the first debate to just run out the clock. Well, events intervened and Hurricane Sandy made running out the clock impossible. (Give Governor Chris Christi an assist with mother nature's efforts.) In reality, though, discussion of Benghazi by Romney could have continued throughout Sandy, but Romney never again picked up the one issue that was moving the polls at that time. Once Candy Crowley slapped him in debate #2, he backed off. It was an absolute scandal, and no one ever asked Obama where he was at the time the live feed from Libya was playing. Romney lost for lack of sand.

Romney muzzled Ryan and the budget debate never was held. The very reason he was called courageous for his Ryan pick was the very thing they shut Ryan down on. Ryan was reduced to waving his arms at Romney gatherings. Platitudes of balancing budgets were common, but there was no stomach for discussing the real dangers affecting America is the budget was not controlled. Tepid describes the Romney approach to the budget.

As predicted, Romney never addressed the very issue that brought about the Tea Party. ObamaCare was simply not an issue for Romney. He was vulnerable due to his own support of RomneyCare, parent of ObamaCare, so he really couldn't attack the idea of big government health care. When it came to ObamaCare, Romney was simply the wrong guy to carry the message. Romney was AWOL -- as predicted during the primary season -- on ObamaCare.

The barrios of America rejected Romney by a huge margin. Forty-four percent of Hispanics supported George W. Bush. Romney garnered a meager 28%. Sadly, most Hispanic Americans have religious reasons to support a more conservative view of life and should naturally fall into the conservative camp. Anyone who has ever watched a migrant worker picking fruit in a field knows that a huge number of Hispanices do not shy from hard work. Sure there are those who would rather live on the dole, but isn't that the case with every demographic? Romney shot the one messenger who had a message that obviously appealed to Hispanic Americans, the governor of Texas. Like Perry or not, the same as George W. Bush, Perry had to get elected in a highly Hispanic state, Texas, so his sensibilities on the subject of the Hispanic vote should have been heeded.

Conservatives must find the inner resolve to admit that targeting Hispanic illegals makes Hispanic legals worry about their inalienable rights of privacy, search and seizure, and equal treatment. Another bitter pill for conservatives is that Hispanic legals are more compassionate toward Hispanic illegals than is the average conservative. With significant Hispanic populations in most of the swing states, conservatives should have noticed that Perry had found a balance that elevated him to the governor's seat in Texas AND permitted him to apply both economic and social conservatism throughout his state. The bottom line is that inalienable rights SHOULD BE a conservative issue. And while "compassionate conservatism" earned George Bush enmity with many conservatives, it also earned him the White House. Conservatives need to rethink the Hispanic vote and acknowledge that concerns about individual inalienable rights trump immigration purity in their minds.

It was too late for Romney, though. He had already taken a hard line stance to win the primary debate with Perry, attacking him mercilessly along with Michelle Bachman. He launched another barrage against Newt Gingrich on the same subject. Neither Romney nor Bachman was experienced in winning the Hispanic vote. Perry was inexperienced in winning primaries. In this instance, Romney lacked the determination of George W. Bush to push back against the poorly aimed concerns of base conservatives.

Romney's loss was predictable and was predicted. The reasons will open a huge debate. The four B's explain much: Benghazi, Budget, oBamaCare, and Barrios. In each instance, whether due to timidity or misguided policy, Romney proved to be the wrong candidate. Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong message.

[linn37]

Wrong answer.Theres a reason why the Republicans kept the house . Its a check on the President and the Senate.

[KeyLargo]

“Young voters, Hispanic voters, black voters, and single women voters “

Add Muslims to that voter base which will all increase now.

All we will have in the future is just another Bush to hold the seat for one or two terms for the next Democrat.

[Zhang Fei]

changing demographics??? do you realize George Bush received more votes in 2004 than obama did last night??? the GOP did not get out and vote- if they had Romney would be president today...obama’s vote count is down more than 10% from 2008- doesn’t seem like changing demographics to me....seems the problem is the way the GOP fights like little girls the past 8 years...

Actually, Romney had no ground game. He should have hired Rove, the GOTV expert, as a consultant. I guess he's used to knowing everything. Sometimes being too smart is a handicap. Romney not only wanted to win, he wanted to win his way - via ad blitzes. If he had done it Rove's way, he would have won. One thing GWB had going for him was humility - not the kind where you say you are humble, but actually defer to the experts. (Of course, given GWB's sparse resume - while far superior to Gore's, Kerry's or Obama's - he had much to be humble about, relative to GHWB).

[sport]

Yep! They have killed the Nation. When they killed the Nation, they also killed themselves.

We, as a Nation are finished. While we could survive the Clintons, Carters, and obamas. We cannot survive the parasites, fools, and traitors that elect them. I have searched for a silver lining to this very black cloud, but there is not one to be found.

[BamaBelle]

Yes, it IS a Republican problem and Breitbart was on to the answer of how to solve it. Conservatives must get involved in the media to change it. Hopefully some young and upcoming conservatives will go into journalism but with the state of our schools and what they are learning these days that would probably have to come from the home schooled group. Public education is another sore issue for me as far as it being a training ground for future liberals.

[xzins]

Perfection wasn’t my issue. My issue was Romney’s timidity.

He did not fight. As you say, he had some pluses, but if you don’t fight, then you will lose that round. You might have the best jab in the game, but if you don’t use it, then you might was well not have it.

Romney would have had no problem pushing Benghazi. He was pro-strong military.

But he backed away from Benghazi hoping to run out the clock based on the strength of his first debate performance.

[Holly_P]

Republican “talking heads” are already spewing the garbage that Romney lost because he was too far right. Look for a repeat liberal in 2016. The G.O.P.e. never learns.

[RightLady]

Yes, the media sucks./ I intend to cancel my subscription to the Akron Beacon Journal today. How much coverage did Lybia get? We had to watch Christie kiss Obama fot a week. This entertainment tonite attitude as overtaken reason and logic. THIS NATION WILL NOT STAND IF THIS CONTINUES.

[SumProVita]

You are correct about the media...it is another factor. However, the root cause is STILL the fact that we have put other things before God. Until we fully understand that and take the proper actions, our direction continues to spiral in a downwards direction.

[xzins]

If Romney had chosen to incessantly talk about Benghazi, he would have forced the media to cover it. He chose not to talk about it even though it was the one issue gaining traction.

He was too TIMID. That’s the charge against him.

If the real campaign happens AFTER the conventions, then Romney was playing prevent defense for almost the entire game.

timid
tepid
lukewarm
awol

[Ray76]

You want to start turning the tide in the “culture war”? Break up the media monopolies.

One company owning 2 TV stations, radio stations, and a newspaper all in one city gives them undue sway. And that company does the same thing in multiple cities and probably produces movies as well. Everything you see, read, and hear is controlled by a few companies. They set the meme. They are the Pied Piper.

[wiseprince]

Fiscal cliff! Hold hands guys. Jump! Don’t raise the debt ceiling

[Lacey2]

Not really looking to play shoulda, woulda, coukda here but I will anyway.

If Rep and Conservatives across the board had followed the Reagan doctrine of speaking no ill towards our Party and would have backed the Party’s chosen candidate after the primaries there is no doubt in my mind the outcome would have been different.

To believe LESS people turned out this cycle vs 2008 still stuns me given all we now know about this president. So to all of you “purists” who simply couldn’t bring yourselves to vote for a man who by your non action as much as said he is actually WORSE than the disaster currently in the WH, you will assume the full responsibility for what if anything of a calamitous nature awaits us down the road.

Frankly I am both nauseated and totally repelled by your selfish actions

[Holly_P]

Todd Akin was the single biggest factor... after the media of course

Don't kid yourself, Mitt Romney was the biggest single factor by far. Add the double standard as a big factor. What Todd Akin had to say wouldn't have been a minor blip if it had been a democrat saying something comparable.

[Holly_P]

The democrats rejected Almighty God Himself, three times, at their convention and nary a blip.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Let me get this straight. Akin and Mourdock, two Tea Party candidates, can't even win in Missouri and Indiana, both of which went for Romney by 10% margins, but you think a conservative Akin- or Mourdock-type candidate could have won the presidency.

Post of the thread.

Sorry, folks; I'm not into RINOs either, but if you think that a strictly Conservative candidate in the mold of Akin or Mourdock will win nationally with this media controlling the narrative and this dumbed-down electorate responding like trained seals to Democrat propaganda, you're living in a bubble.

[Ray76]

Boehner needs to be thrown out of his position.

[Holly_P]

To this day, I still don't understand how or why Romney got to be the nominee in the first place.

He ran against about a half dozen opponents, who were all, far more conservative than he was and the G.O.P.e. backed him. The Grand Old Party elite will do it again in 2016.

[canuck_conservative]

Member for a whole 6 hours.

Why do you sound exactly like Rachel Maddow or some other DNC plant?

[KeyLargo]

"Wrong answer.Theres a reason why the Republicans kept the house . Its a check on the President and the Senate."

Oh really?

Boehner wants to reach across the isle now and bend over.

Boehner offers congratulations to Obama

Posted: Nov 06, 2012 7:00 PM CST Updated: Nov 07, 2012 1:52 AM CST

Boehner said that the elections were a mandate to take "steps together" to boost the economy.

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker John Boehner says that the decision by voters to keep a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in control of the House means they are looking for political leaders to find common ground.

The more conciliatory wording from Boehner came early Wednesday after Barack Obama secured a second term. The statement, part of a press release, contrasted with earlier statements when he said Republicans offered solutions while their opponents chose inaction.