Posted on 11/24/2012 10:47:25 AM PST by Bratch
Speaking at The David Horowitz Freedom Center's "Restoration Weekend" in Florida on November 16, Pat Caddell indicted what he called the Republican "consultant-lobbyist-establishment" complex for losing a presidential campaign in 2012 President Barack Obama had no business winning.
“No presidential campaign should be run by consultants,” Caddell said. “They should be run by people who are committed to the candidate and not into making big money.”
Caddell said “Republicans never attempted to put a frame around the national election” because “the people who run the messaging in the Republican party and their consultants refused to do it.”
Caddell, the former Jimmy Carter adviser who consulted on the "Hope and the Change" movie that profiled disaffected Obama 2008 voters who were not going to vote for him in 2012, warned Republicans that the consultant-lobbyist-establishment complex may threaten to take the party into oblivion if not marginalized.
The Romney campaign, Caddell said, was driven be establishment consultants and was a failure of mechanics and message.
“But most of all, it was a failure of imagination,” Caddell said. ““It was the single worst campaign in modern history of a challenger who had a chance to win ... and that’s the truth and nothing can take away from that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I agree the current primary system needs to change.
I would go back to the founders' ideas about electors. It wwould all be on one day, but I'd have each state legislator district in the US elect an elector who goes to the national convention, and those electors select the presidential and vice presidential nominee and establish the party platform.
We definitely need to get rid of the presidential candidate selecting the vice-presidential candidate. That is simply a silly procedure.
Eventually, we need to get around to repealing the 17th amendment, too. We NEED a representative from the state legislature voting on Federal initiatives. We need them answering to the people far more than every 6 years. And, we need them because they would be antagonistic to beltway shenanigans.
I long for the days of Ray Bliss. He started as REP chairman and ended up National. He cared about the machinery that elected Republicans . It had nothing to do with with any partisanship toward the GOP. He brought the party back in 66 and go us the presidency in 68. He could get out the vote!
I long for the days of Ray Bliss. He started as REP chairman in Ohio and ended up National. He cared about the machinery that elected Republicans . It had nothing to do with with any partisanship toward the GOP. He brought the party back in 66 and go us the presidency in 68. He could get out the vote!
Alas, he only did as well as McCain, and that wasn't good enough.
as I posted, “sadly, never.”
We’re not talking about Romney, who personally ran a good campaign.
It was all those campaign funkiest and consultants who did the details, which are the ones Caddell is talking about.
Think of that buffoon Eric Fehrnstrom who after Romney took strong stands on amnesty and other issues in the primaries came out and said “we’ll change our message like an Etch a sketch”
That lost millions of those white Reagan democrats and others who could no longer trust Romney.
We’re not talking about Romney, who personally ran a good campaign.
It was all those campaign funkiest and consultants who did the details, which are the ones Caddell is talking about.
Think of that buffoon Eric Fehrnstrom who after Romney took strong stands on amnesty and other issues in the primaries came out and said “we’ll change our message like an Etch a sketch”
That lost millions of those white Reagan democrats and others who could no longer trust Romney.
But FUR SHUR you don't go campaigning for undecided voters in the middle ~ because they don't exist ~ there being no middle for one thing, but also by the time we get around to a Presidential race, everybody is decided on which candidate they like ~ the only remaining decision is whether to vote or not vote.
You really need to campaign to your base ~ to get them out.
I’ve got to disagree. Romney ran a lousy campaign.
He backed away from anything on Libya, on the budget, and on unemployment (except his “12 million jobs” line.)
He refused to take up social conservative issues, but the damning thing about it was that his silence was AFTER he sided with gay couples, gay adoption, gay boy scouts, and a gay military.
His only words on abortion were words to clarify that he didn’t really mean “health of the mother” when he said “health of the mother” when talking about EXCEPTIONS to abortion. IOW, he did not make a case for the sacredness of life, he spoke instead about the necessity of abortion in many cases, as he saw it. He was not a “LIFE” crusader; he was an exception crusader.
How easy is it to say, as Reagan was wont to do, “if we’re arguing if it’s life or not, then let’s err on the side of life.”
So, he had folks sit on the sidelines and he lost.
The only way one can say Romney ran a “good” campaign is if they believe Romney intended to lose.
I think he ran a pretty bad campaign. One way of looking at it is how much better did the GOP ticket do because of Romney’s campaign?
IOW, lets say after the convention Romney had announced “Look, we all know how awful Obama is, I’m not even going to bother campaigning. It’s simple. If you want 4 more years of Obama, vote for him in November, if you don’t, vote for me.
Would he have ended up any worse than he did?
I don’t think so/
In the end, he wound up with the 47.5% or so who would have just as soon voted “Not Obama”. I don’t think he really added anything to that or built on the anti-Obama vote to get him the extra few pts he needed to get over the top. That’s on the campaign.
Her own husband was heavily involved in the pornography business.
She was no more fit for public office than Nancy Pelosi, also of that same sort of origin.
The Mob has always had a big stake in Democrat politicians. With Obama they've got it in spades (not a pun).
Interesting we have folks wanting us to think less of Atwater because of his feeble attempt to draw our attention to the criminal elements at the top of the Democrat party.
Sounds like you agree with my shadow govt idea like they have in the UK. Like Romney should have already had a cabinet announced in the summer and campaigned with them as a team. For some reason only the P and VP run together in the US.
If he had a full cabinet put together and ran so people knew the entire new administration I think that would have helped.
It would be a good idea for 2016./
you disagree with the fact that the takers, the illiterate, unknowing people who unwittingly voted for a marxist???
Obviously you did not watch the vimeo video which did not even mention Bill Whittle
Yes...Romney was the worst choice! We need to repair the primary system asap.
Here's an interesting article on the topic, which includes your phrase "shadow" cabinet.
All the President's Mystery Men (and Women)
-PJ
The loser party plain and simple, go kiss the ring it’s your turn. fools! Not a dime comes your way from my pocket
BUMP
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.