Skip to comments.
Romney Adviser Blames Bad Messaging
Foxnews.com ^
| 07 Nov 2012
Posted on 11/08/2012 11:25:45 AM PST by US Navy Vet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: US Navy Vet
41
posted on
11/08/2012 2:33:06 PM PST
by
Graewoulf
((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
To: Yosemitest
So...
Who is your candidate who would have beaten Obama this time?
42
posted on
11/08/2012 3:06:01 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum.
Any of these Conservatives could have cleaned Obama's clock, and any one of them ... had the guts to do it!
43
posted on
11/09/2012 12:34:54 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple! Fight ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Umm, Herman quit.
Palin never got in.
The rest couldn’t beat Romney, who couldn’t beat Obama.
Even on FR we couldn’t unite behind any one of them.
44
posted on
11/09/2012 7:48:44 AM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
Comment #45 Removed by Moderator
To: D-fendr
They couldn't beat Romney because the voting public isn't paying attention to what's really happening.
Too many of them are worried about being nice, rather than solving problems.
Too many elected Republicans are "going along to get along", instead of standing up for principles.
So where are we in this
"Fatal Sequence" of
The Cycle of Nations:?
Bondage to Spiritual Faith; Spiritual Faith to Courage; Courage to Freedom; Freedom to Abundance; Abundance to Selfishness; Selfishness to Complacency;
46
posted on
11/09/2012 12:24:35 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple! Fight ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Of course re-electing Obama keeps the nation on a terrible course. And yes, it reflects badly on a large segment of voters.
My point was we’re not the victims of some GOP conspiracy, or the establishment or elite or whatever. We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested.
We had a weak field; we need better candidates.
We had sideliners and third-pary vote wasters; we need more unity.
And we need to work on our long term problems in education and culture.
Playing the victim doesn’t help.
47
posted on
11/09/2012 1:44:49 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
Well put (both your posts).
48
posted on
11/10/2012 11:15:20 AM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: D-fendr
Playing the victim? Really?
Yes we had a weak field.
Only about 38 percent of the Republicans supported Romney in the Primary.
So 62 percent voted AGAINST
"Establishment Republican" Romney.
And you say,
"Were not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested" Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?
Victim? Do you really believe that Romney got ZERO votes in 68 Precincts?
Do you really believe it was an accident that when some people voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the machine appeared to change it to the Democrat candidate Barack Obama?
Do you really believe that Democrats didn't intentionally vote more than once for Obama?
I think you need to grow up.
Denying being a victim of voter fraud doesn't help.
But getting the
criminal enterprise of the Obama Judicial System to prosecute the guilty who stole this election, is a lost cause.
Remember, it doesn't matter who has the votes,
it matters who COUNTS the votes.
49
posted on
11/13/2012 1:46:10 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
So 62 percent voted AGAINST "Establishment Republican" Unfortunately those were split among three, four or five other candidates.
My other point was we were not unified.
Weak candidates, lack of unity. Not victims of "the Establishment."
50
posted on
11/13/2012 3:41:05 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
We will never unify under
"Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are
"Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that
COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These
"Establishment Republicans" bare being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.
YOU SAY [We're]
"Not victims of "the Establishment."" I disagree.
I ask you again:
Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?
It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the
"Establishment Republicans"and it WAS the
"Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.
So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE
' victims of "the Establishment." '
Take a good long look at where
"Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.
51
posted on
11/14/2012 1:55:46 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Your logic has the victims electing their victimizers, Stockholm Syndrome in addition to victimhood and throw in a good dose of stupidity of being controlled by advertising.
You have very poor opinion of conservatives.
No, we were victims only of a weak field of candidates and our lack of unity in opposition to less conservative candidates.
52
posted on
11/14/2012 10:17:44 AM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
No, some of the Conservatives we elected, lied about
being Conservative.
No more!
We're holding our Conservatives accountable, and
"Establishment Republicans" have got to GO!
We can NOT unite with
"Establishment Republicans" who are opposed to our CORE values.
READ IT AGAIN.
![](http://0.tqn.com/d/usconservatives/1/G/w/0/-/-/JKerwick.jpg)
Read Jack Kerwick's article written May 24, 2011 titled
The Tea Partier versus The Republican.
Jack Kerwick gets to the
very heart of the issues that separate
real Conservatives from those who would play us like pawns to be wasted for their agenda.
Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isnt looking too terribly promising.
This, though, isnt meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.
It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our compassionate conservative president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.
It is this frustration with the GOPs betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.
If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of 06 and 08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.
First, they will be told that they are utopian, purists foolishly holding out for an ideal candidate.
Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party, they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.
Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.
Lets begin with the argument against purism. To this line, two replies are in the coming.
No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isnt an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, dont exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.
A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate is one thing;
I will only vote for a perfect candidate is something else entirely.
As for the second objection against the Tea Partiers rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election seasonand at no time more so than this past seasonRepublicans pledge to reform Washington, trim down the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for compromise and patience.
Well, when the Tea Partiers impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.
For example,
as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the countrys leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.
It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservativesand the countrywill ultimately win.
If he didnt know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.
Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.
I ask you again:
Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?
It was Mitt Romney, leader of the
"Establishment Republicans"and
it WAS the
"Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.
So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE
' victims of "the Establishment." '
I'm fresh out of
"patience", and I'm not in the mood for
"compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the
RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where
"Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.
The
"Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!
53
posted on
11/14/2012 12:42:19 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
I find your posts redundant.
If you don’t like certain candidates don’t support them, recruit better candidates, unify behind them to win elections. If you don’t like people in some party positions, replace them. Get active, build coalitions, etc. etc.
This victim garbology is weak, insulting and not useful.
54
posted on
11/14/2012 12:49:16 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
Sometime a
redundancy is what we need, to break through to the moron voters we have.
" If you dont like certain candidatesdont support them,recruit better candidates,unify behind them to win elections.
If you dont like people in some party positions,replace them.Get active,build coalitions, etc. etc."
I agree.
That's exactly what the
Taxed
Enough
Already Party is doing.
But some of us, buried in bills increasing cost that Democrats have taken out of computing in the "Cost of Living" (fuel, groceries,etc,etc),
and just trying to decide whether we buy our insulin or our pay that "naturally sky-rocketing" electric bill,
... some of us, all we can afford to do ... is express our thoughts here at Free Republic.
And between trying to make ends meet, help with aging parents, and scrape up a little extra fund to cover the increase in
real cost of living
not covered by
"Establishment Republicans", Mitt Romney, and the
Arab-
Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II,
(a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one
guilty of TREASON ! )
some of us just don't have much leisure time to
"Get active, build coalitions, etc. etc."
Denying being a victim of
"Establishment Republicans" enables
"Establishment Republicans" to continue to abuse us.
It aids
"Establishment Republicans" in our defeat,
and it insults our integrity to
lie to us by telling Conservatives that it isn't happening.
WAKE UP !
The Republican Party isn't
Republican any more. a
It's becoming
Socialists Lite.
Let us remember ...
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Nikita_Khrusjtsjov.jpg/170px-Nikita_Khrusjtsjov.jpg)
"You Americans are so gullible. No, you wont accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We wont have to fight you; well so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "
Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier
55
posted on
11/14/2012 1:43:47 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: All
Sorry, too many typos.
I gotta' get some sleep.
56
posted on
11/14/2012 1:47:17 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
some of us just don't have much leisure time to "Get active, build coalitions, etc. etc."You have enough to post pages of whines on an internet forum. You could do better than repetitive attacks on those you think are your oppressor - one of whom died six years ago.
57
posted on
11/14/2012 2:30:13 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: Yosemitest
I think we have both stated our position and views on this thread. I’m going to leave it and allow you the last word if you wish to.
I thank you for the discussion and hope we can remain passionate in our views even when they are contrary, and still be on the same side when it counts.
best wishes and may God bless you and yours...
58
posted on
11/14/2012 10:05:10 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson