| Free Republic 4th Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 | Receipts & Pledges to-date: $15,370 | |||
| ||||
| Woo hoo!! And we're now over 18%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless. | ||||
Posted on 11/11/2012 12:15:09 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Very good Jim, you much more articulate what is on my mind than I can.
Thank you for your inspiration. It helps, believe you me.
After this election, I'm not sure of anything any more.
Did you see this FR thread? For the truly brainwashed and individuals that have sold their soul, I don't think he could ever be too odious:
Agree completely. We cannot abandon our principles. We just have to regroup and learn to wage this battle with modern tools. With this site as a meeting place and with the help of other New Technology savvy people, we will take the fight to the opposition with renewed vigor and urgency. The leadership of the left is cunning and absolutely dedicated to the reduction of this Republic, but their followers are undisciplined and unreliable. From the election results, it seems that may now outnumber us. However, our cause is just and our faith is strong. What we lack in numbers, we will make up for in our fighting spirit. We will defeat them because, in the end, their beliefs amount to nothing, while our beliefs are grounded in the Constitution and are given to us from a much higher authority.
Thank you very much, Haddit!!
Thank you very much, onona!!
Thank you very much, 3Fingas!!
Thank you very much, Mr. and Mrs. plsjr!! God bless.
HiTech: Well, the folks who said let Obama win because it would be easier to get rid of the hostile evil than a friendly evil....
Spirited: Obama’s socialist healthcare plan is modeled on Romney’s socialist Romney-care and while gov. of Mass. Romney bragged of being more pro-gay than Obama., and his actions lived up to his boast. And years before before posturing himself as a conservative Romney openly admitted to being a progressive, another word for socialism.
While Obama takes his orders from the Godless socialist transnational left Romney takes his from the Godless transnational progressive ‘atheist right,’ the boys who dream of tearing our nation apart and subsuming it into Canada and S. America. The vast transnational highway coming up out of SA and into Texas with plans of quartering our nation into fourths is the work of Romneys transnational masters.
Ultimately, both transnational factions bow to higher ups-—the global banker-corporatist consortium that owns the Fed and other central state banks.
So a vote for either Obama or Romney was a vote for progressive socialist transnationalism and the banker-corporatist consortium.
Had Romney won, after a brief honeymoon period his betrayal of conservatives would inevitably have begun providing great and unending satisfaction to the ever-vicious msm. The brutality of the psychological attack they would have gleefully launched may have finally destroyed the spirit of the conservative movement.
We will never have a conservative or rino president again.
It will be socialists and commies like Zero forever and this country will be like California in 10 Years.
We fought the Mexicans for years, for what! They are going to do to USA as they Did in California!
Romney Loved this country as much as any one of us and we conservatives spoke bad of him.
Now we got what we deserve, Obama and ObamaCare, and Calification of our our country.
The elite GOP phonies are so full of crap with their post-election “analysis.” They’re simply plugging in whatever pet issues they had before this election and reiterating them as if they’ve had some new revelation based on these results. Much of the analysis from both sides of the aisle is a pack of lies.
The only people we should be looking to for ideas on what went wrong and where we go from here are the people who FOUGHT AGAINST ROMNEY in the primary. They were proven absolutely right. Their wisdom has been vindicated. The establishment stuffed shirts who pushed Romney on us need to be ignored and driven out of any positions of leadership or respectability.
Coincidentally these elites are the same people who have been trying to destroy the pro-life movement and talking about capitulating on same-sex marriage for years now. The whole reason they nominated Romney in the first place, as they admitted, was because they wanted to run “on the economy” and ignore social issues. How’d that work out for us?
Above all else, Romney was simply a bad candidate. Modern presidential elections are almost always won or lost on personality, charisma and likability. Aside from his brief shining moment in the first debate, Romney lost to Obama on those points. There aren’t a whole lot of solid conclusions that can be drawn from a presidential election since they are so superficial, other than that the people who pushed Romney on us are horrible strategists and their advice needs to be FLAT-OUT IGNORED from now on.
While I don’t think the party should be changing its platform, and I support flat tax rates, if there’s one issue the party is having trouble selling, it’s the idea of cutting taxes or not raising taxes on the “rich.” The most damaging stereotype for years of the Republican party has been that it’s a party “for the rich.” But the blue blood GOP elites who wet dreamed about Romney during the primary and who say we ought to abandon “social issues” would NEVER recommend changing our stance on the tax issues.
In any case, the party needs to come up with better messaging for lower income earners. THIS is where the party’s big marketing problem lies, not social issues. Romney lost with voters with incomes under $50,000 big, and won with voters with incomes over $50,000 almost as big. This gap also explains most of the race, age and gender gaps, since minorities, young people and single women all tend to have lower incomes. By contrast, if you look at married women, they have higher incomes and vote Republican. We should all be brainstorming on how to communicate our message better to people with lower incomes. Nominating Romney was certainly not a way to do it.
It’s also amusing how the most liberal Republican Senator, Scott Brown, lost his election, yet somehow increased liberalism is still deemed the path to electoral victory by the establishment RINOs. These are people with an agenda and a bias stuck in their heads. Reality doesn’t affect their opinions one way or the other. Notice how they set out to destroy Todd Akin by removing his funding and criticizing him publically, yet they don’t blame themselves at all for his loss.
The bottom line is if social conservatism is removed from the party platform, a third party will form very fast. And then the Republicans will never win an election again. The Democrats may win for a while, but the third party will never capitulate to the Republicans and will be content to wait years if they have to until the tide turns their way.
We vote pro-God, guns, and Constitution every time.
Thank you Jim, for your wise words, and for Free Republic.
Thanks to God for our freedom, our lives, our families, and the wisdom of true Patriots.
Indeed. By liberal RINO dreams, both Scott Brown and Mitt Romney should’ve won their elections in landslides. Without social conservatism, there is no fiscal conservatism. Do we really need 2 liberal parties? The diehard libs are going to vote Dem no matter what.
Great post, Jim!
We do have to change our message, but not our beliefs.
For years, we talk about returning to constitutional limits, small government and individual liberty.
The problem with this is that most people do not understand what any of that means. It sounds good, but they do not understand why it actually is the best course for our nation.
The education must start with us.
Jim, this is all well and good, but using the Tea Party as the mechanism is a losing proposition. Tea Party is now a “prisoner” of the left, captured and presented publicly as “anti-American” for all that term has been defined.
I heard Jim Luntz talk the other day that conservatives need to change the tone and the content of the discourse and actually have a discourse. I’ve been thinking about how that might apply in our political discussions, because I think we mean well but are lousy at explaining our positions in a non-threatening and even positive manner.
So taking that to specifics, here are some examples:
How about we talk not about capitalism, but about economic freedom.
Not about lower taxes, but about protecting family finances.
Not about huge entitlements, but about holes in our mutual safety net.
Not about coveting minorities use of expensive social programs, but about buidling sustainable protections for minority families in the areas of training, jobs, and health care.
Those are just a few possible examples.
Keep up the good work. We need to find a way to reclaim the youth. The Godless messages of the left are compelling.
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.