THE BOOK OF MORON
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 ...
Even in the deepest pits of Leftist Hell I would still register my opposition to the Devil.
Besides, imagine the joy the Left in Seattle experiences when they see the election results and logically believe conservatism is more dead than it actually is...I, for one, wouldn't give the SOBs the satisfaction.
Of course it didn't; and the unhappy pouter stamping his widdle feetsies to the contrary certainly could have taken the minute, minute-and-a-half tops to Google the requisite information to that effect, had he genuinely any demonstrable interest in adding anything other than dull, dyspeptic bleating to the conversation. But [::sighs::] whaddya gonna do, right...? ;)
A little fable, for any/all out there still resolutely Not... Quite... Getting... It:
"Once upon a time, a pet food company created a new variety of dog food, and rolled out a massive marketing campaign to introduce the product.
"Despite hiring a first-rate advertising agency, initial sales were very, very disappointing. The agency was fired, and a new agency (with an expensive new campaign) was launched. Sales, however, stubbornly continued to crater. (If anything, in fact, they fell even further than they had before.)
"In desperation, the CEO called in all of his top executives for a brainstorming session to analyze what had gone wrong with the two campaigns, and how a new campaign might revive sales.
"The meeting went on for hours. Sophisticated statistical analysis was brought to bear on the problem. One VP argued that the mix of TV and print ads had been hopelessly bollixed. Another argued that the previous campaigns had been too subtle, and had failed to feature the product with sufficient prominence. Still another argued that the TV ad campaign had focused too much on spots during sporting events, and not enough on regular programming with a broader demographic. And yet another argued the exact opposite: not enough sports programming had been targeted!
"After the debate had raged for hour after fruitless hour, the CEO felt they had accomplished damned little. He asked if anyone else had any theories -- any at all -- that might conceivably explain the failure of their new product. Finally, one newly hired employee raised her hand and was recognized.
"'Maybe the dogs simply don’t like it,' she offered."
I can't even remotely imagine why that particular fable occurred to me just now. Honest. ;)
Slipshod statistical analysis. Pappy Bush (CINO) lost. Dole (CINO) lost. McCain (CINO) lost. Romney (CINO) lost. Dubya is, demonstrably, the aberration; not the rule.
Who do you believe would have been a candidate who could have been victorious over Obama?
Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative -- with a genuine record OF conservatism in governance -- would have accomplished Step One out of Baby's Big Book of Basic Electoral Politics, if nothing else: "Start By SECURING Your Base, Not DEPRESSING Your Base."
Which is, inarguably, considerably more than Mittens managed to do, given six full years and a hundred million dollars or so.
(... and, again, the correct question to be asked here is: "Why, given the humiliating record of crushing electoral futility highlighted above, does the GOP mulishly insist upon doing precisely the opposite -- ?!?")
Based on what?
Asked and answered. See above.
They got precisely the genteel Massachusetts liberal they wanted; who ran precisely the campaign they wanted him to run; with a multi-year head start (since '08), and more cash on hand than might have been found forcibly crammed into Scrooge McDuck's fabled money bin.
They have no one at which to legitimately howl, ultimately, save themselves. ;)
I agree!
He won once.
Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative
Do they have names or are they figments of your imagination?
Now that would make me do a “Happy Dance”!
THE BOOK OF MORON
I’m glad to see that Romney finally has the political stake through his heart. Now, we need to exile those that shoved him down our throats. Let’s start with Rove and Coulter.
great post ... it was well worth the effort ... the photos say it all ...
No one asked me, but my number one pick was and still is Allen West. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
are they figments of your imagination?
If you genuinely feel that "reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservatives" with enough simple, stick-stone-bone common sense NOT to uncontrollably piddle all over the inviolable Rule One of electoral politics are (your words) "figments of [my] imagination": small wonder, then, that the fumbling inherent in the GOP approach -- working from precisely that baseline premise -- has been one of such wretched, abject failure. Two (TWO!) losses to a serial adulterer and rapist; two (TWO!) losses, thereafter, to an open and unapologetic socialist.
Your (now) thrice-repeated attempt to steer discussion away from the epic disaster that was the GOP's lunatic, bucktoothed folles du Mittens -- and towards any other Republican and/or conservative actually NOT ultimately responsible for wholly and utterly botching the race against the Hugo Chavez of Chicago, with real unemployment whipsawing between 18-and-22% -- is noted, and (quite properly) disdained. Pointing a quivering, accusatory finger at Bachmann, or Perry, or Palin, or whomever-have-you does absolutely jack-all to mitigate the sheer, Krakatoan magnitude of the resulting shockwave from the entirely forseeable (and forseen) GOP/Mittens combination anti-Tea Party tantrum and electoral hari kari.
The GOP's problem, and yours, is a sweaty, desperate desire to "win," without ever once having to properly engage with either conservatives or conservatism. Have fun with that, by all means.
[screwing off Rove's head, peering inside] My God, Jim, he has no core!
“The GOP nominated the next loser in line who couldn’t beat the original loser.
That is how Karl Rove and Anne Coulter pimped on us the weakest candidate in Republican history who cost the party its chance at a Senate majority.”
And that is what should be his legacy. Rockefeller is ancient history to all but the older and most addicted political junkies. The term “Rockefeller Republican” is obsolete. That mantle of failure should now be “Romney Republican”.
If only it were true. There may be no ideological faction that’s “Romneyist”, but his people are still part of the system, and therefore, will continue to be a problem.
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.