Those who found themselves in some way to ethically superior to vote for Romney helped bring us Obama again. They deserve no mercy IMO.
I think those on the right knew darn well the stakes this time, so we had some messed up in the head not voting this time IMO.
Take your 'mercy' and shove it!
We neither want it nor need it!
The only people messed up in the head are the leaders of the Republican party who refuse to look at history and understand their base. At some point you have to look at reality and realize that nope Bush I did not work for us nor Dole, McCain and gee now Romney joins the crew...surprise, surprise! Gee, by now I think it is well documented that rinos lose.
Maybe, just maybe smart men figure out if they want to win they put up a conservative so their base comes out.
At some point people have to deal with the reality of their party if they want to win, it is just that simple.
It isn't about being 'ethically superior'... It is about a kind or 'recipe' that when cooked properly, smells good to the folks WHO AREN"T politically inclined, and draws them to the kitchen to partake...
This article comes very close to telling the truth: it ain't entirely about 'who voted'. The biggest electorate in the country is the folks who don't. And I would submit that those folks are generally far too busy to bother with it unless there is a very good reason to go.
That recipe is Conservative principles. The 'cooking' is the campaign... Noecons decided to change the recipe... And this is what you get.
'The three legs of the Conservative stool' used to be a part of the political vernacular... And it used to be said that a man had to be able to support all three according to his record - that was the way to victory, because *not* having that record would surely expose unappetizing actions that would cause 'the folks' to become disinterested, and remove the candidate from viability. That USED TO BE the common understanding.
Now it is all about pragmatism and popularity... And what the candidate has DONE can be wholly be forgotten because of what he SAYS on the stump, so long as there's a dab of Brylcreme and a nifty Dentyne schwing is added to his spotless white smile in his campaign ads.
That ain't gonna cut it. it never has and it never will. And neither will 'boogey-man' campaigns, 'up the middle' campaigns to capture independents, or any other bullcrap that changes the recipe. People respond in droves to statesmanship and truth, not politicians and promises.
Here is the truth: You have to... HAVE TO.. give the folks someone to vote *FOR*
We need to win senate seats this next off-year election and build a more conservative House that gets rid of Whore House Bone-head. We need to put ‘lame duck’ status on O as soon as possible.
[OK — that’s my 2 cents for now. I’ll stay away for a while as promised. FRegards ....]
It's not that simple. Who stayed home? Who didn't vote for the top of the ticket or senator too?
Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him. Aaron Blake pointed out in the Washington Post that Romney ran ahead of most of the Republican Senate candidates: He did better than Connie Mack in Florida, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan, Deb Fischer in Nebraska, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Josh Mandel in Ohio, and of course Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. In some cases Romney did a lot better. (He also did slightly better than Ted Cruz in Texas, a race Blake for some reason ignored.)None of those candidates were as rich as Romney, and almost all of them had more consistently conservative records than he did. It didn’t help them win more votes. The only Republican Senate candidates who ran significantly ahead of Romney were people running well to his left in blue states, and they lost too.
This isn't bad as an analysis of the GOP, but I'm still waiting for a better analysis of the results.