Posted on 11/12/2012 10:10:37 AM PST by jazusamo
Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment— nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.
The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many re-runs of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran for reelection, George H.W. Bush.
Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for reelection as himself— "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision thing" and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been counter-attacking against the foolish things being said.
This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics— such as ending "tax cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing" in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped.
Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
It is a shame that most blacks are stuck on stupid when they have in thier company guys like this that shine and have common sense. To have a brain is to be an uncle tom.
To the point, and right on the mark. Thanks for the ping jaz.
—I agree but trying to explain anything that requires compound sentences and an attention span greater that about thirty seconds to most of the TV generation is nearly impossible-—
"You can tax the rich. You can take everything they have. You can't fill the deficit. You can't pay for medicare. We just don't have enough rich people to do it. Apparently, my opponent thinks we're going to find these people on Mars. I wish him luck. They don't exist."
Less than 30 seconds and makes Obama look stupid. Its NOT that hard to do this stuff. It does, however, take some creativity and a willingness to tell the Election Consultants and Elites that you're going to make waves.
Yet, Sowell writes so well — a very easy read.
This isn’t about blacks. It’s about the linguini-spined, limp=-wristed, “don’t hurt me” Republicans who are TERRIFIED of fighting back!!
The theft of this election by Obama is bad enough, but the fact that the GOP-E hasn’t got the cajones to fight back against the thugocracy and corruption of Obama is beyond disgraceful!!
I NEVER want a Republican to represent me again!! I want CONSERVATIVES willing to go mano-a-mano with these crooks; I want people who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty and aren’t afraid to be late for happy hour at the club to represent me.
I am done with the elitest cowards in the GOP!!!
Precisely. Rinse and repeat. And repeat. Expose the other side’s methods, educate voters. Has any of that been done? I don’t watch TV=, and in my area there weren’t any commercials anyway, but I know that during the debates Romney played a nice guy, played well but played defense. The worst thing is that Obama and his shenanigans, his questionably history, background have not been publicly exposed by our bashful side. Could Romney have lost any worse if he had run what is contemptuously regarded as a “negative campaign”. And if he had, then what difference would it have made in the end? Obamao is such a despicable character despite being portrayed as a saint by the MSM that a negative campaign is the only method of exposing him.
Rush listed some “moderates” who lost last week, here’s a few:
Linda McMahon
Scott Brown
Tommy Thompson
...there were more I missed...
if being “moderate” were the key to winning, why didn’t these win?
No, ronnie, the real shame is that EVERYONE who didn’t vote for Romney, and everyone who was eligible to and didn’t vote, is stuck on stupid!
As the XO on the Russian sub said to his dumbass CO just before they were sunk by their own torpedo, “You fool! You have killed us all!”
Yes, I am calling out every single American who didn’t vote or didn’t vote for Romney, whatever the reason.
You have killed us all!
ah, but that’s so “uncivil”...
And the “better people”, ie, the left, will make disdainful remarks if we did that...
Thanks for the ping
We don’t all have to die, either literally or figuratively.
Many will, both literally and figuratively,
but you can get off the bus driving recklessly on the icy road,
and you will survive if you have your cold weather gear already on.
Of course they will, and I would recommend doubling-down on calling out their silliness once they do that.
Lefties are by their very nature angry people. That can be exploited for quite a bit of gain.
Its like chess. You play your opponent and the board at the same time and the goal is to take your opponent out of their book as fast as possible and put them into yours.
Well he needed the ignorant to reelect him, but they weren’t all black who fall in the category
“It’s like chess.”
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon.
No matter how well you play chess,
the pigeon just knocks over the pieces,
craps on the board,
utters unintelligible, vaguely obscene sounds,
and struts around like he won.
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.
