If we steadfastly reward them for unacceptable behavior... then the only thing that nets us, ultimately, is MORE unacceptable behavior. ;)
Posted on 11/14/2012 12:35:08 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
In a New York magazine piece this week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells eulogizes Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The headline pretty much sums it up: “So long, Mitt: In love with America, terrified for its future, relegated to its past.” But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.
Many times during the campaign, I slammed Romney for his ideological promiscuity. His flip-flopping was a character flaw that engendered mistrust among the Republican base and disbelief among the general electorate. As I wrote last month, politicians changing their minds on a core issue isn’t uncommon and should be respected. What Romney did during his six years running for president was change his mind on everything.
Romney’s change of position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, climate change, his own health care law — collectively, they called into question whether he had a core at all. They also made it impossible for those who believed in the former Massachusetts governor to point to anything he really believed in. That’s why there’s no discernible Romney philosophy from 2012 that will define the Republican Party for decades to come. That’s why there are no Romneyites.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
FUMR!
Go to Hell and Burn...
I never want to hear from you again...or your skank supporters....
Well, then there’s that...
Luv’d the euphemism of MittMentum.../s not
Just as a Squirrel is a Rat with a press agent.
PfffT!!!
Get outta here! Whuddyuh really mean? /s
If we steadfastly reward them for unacceptable behavior... then the only thing that nets us, ultimately, is MORE unacceptable behavior. ;)
I have nary qualm nor compunction about likening the Meghan McCains of today’s Republican party to vermin of any stripe. ;)
Who would or could have been the perfect candidate in your opinion? Why?
...we are trying to work up a movement to primary his RINO ass out in 2014 but that sissy sumbitch has deep pockets and many favors owed him by powerful people.
Unsupported assertion. I do not (nor ever have) sought "perfection" in any political candidate.
What I do insist upon -- and this is a simple enough baseline to meet -- is that said candidate be both fiscally and socially conservative (see sig line, below). There are at present, to that end, approximately 230+ Republicans in the House; 45 or so in the Senate; and somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 sitting governors.
The pertinent question, here, is: why, from that available pool, does the GOP-e routinely (and suicidally) persist in cuddling and cossetting the absolute LEAST conservative potential candidates possible...?
Any other formulation is, ultimately, mere arm-waving and mugging in the service of (failed) distraction.
It's Mitt's fault that he couldn't convince you and others like you to help him stop Obama...
...but Obama thanks the both of you nonetheless...guess you can't complain about Obama now without being a hypocrite.
Pfffftt. Idiot sulking, and nothing more. Try familiarizing yourself with the electoral history of Seattle -- where a conservative's is the equivalent of Kleenex in blast furnace -- and then get back to me, mm'kay?
Ryan may leave more of a legacy than Romney.
That would be meager enough take-away, from the GOP-constructed bungle of this last election... but a (comparative) bright spot, nonetheless. ;)
We all know the answer as we are sentient beings...
...but you are addicted to sophistry and the thrill of argument so I cease to waste my time on someone who will not be serious.
a final sardonic “thanks for Obama” will end it.
Too difficult? Too bad.
As another “conservative in exile” here in the Seattle Area, my non-vote for Romney did NOT affect his election chances. AT ALL. My vote for all the folks with an “R” after their name for everything from Governor down to City Dog Catcher also was to no avail. I thought we had a chance with Governor and some of the other State positions.
And it is also disheartening to see all of the money that I donated to the local races end up on the losing side. But - we try to do what we can.
Strangely there are a few true/blue Romney-ist here @ FR. They are vicious and will start howling at anyone that mentions the failure that is Romney!
Then there’s Coulter, Hannity and friends.
Who do you believe would have been a candidate who could have been victorious over Obama? Based on what?
The pertinent question, here, is: why, from that available pool, does the GOP-e routinely (and suicidally) persist in cuddling and cossetting the absolute LEAST conservative potential candidates possible...?
Maybe because Bush won twice and real conservatives rarely win congressional of senate seats?
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.