Easy, when Dems don't run a black man that will get 95% of blacks to vote for him.
And Republicans not nominating a moderate and/or Mormon.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do Republicans get the White House in 2016?
- Thread starter rightwinger
- Start date
Easy, when Dems don't run a black man that will get 95% of blacks to vote for him.
And Republicans not nominating a moderate and/or Mormon.
- Aug 4, 2009
- 280,686
- 139,196
- 2,300
- Thread starter
- #82
Yep, anything BUT personal responsibility, that would be asking too much.
Right now, abortion is personal responsibility. It is saying I am unable to care for a child and I will not bring it into the world. You may not like it...but it is the law of the land
Nope, personal responsibility is not getting knocked up in the first place. That requires engaging the brain before anything else.
Look women get pregnant. It has been happening ever since there have been women. A pregnant woman has choices. One of those choices is to abort the baby. If you oppose that, I respect you for that
However, you have to give that woman alternatives if you don't want her to abort. Those alternatives are birth control, adoption and keeping the baby. If you call her a slut, berate her for not engaging her brain, make it difficult for her to carry the child to term.....she will choose to abort
If you don't like it...tough
- Aug 4, 2009
- 280,686
- 139,196
- 2,300
- Thread starter
- #83
The good news. Republicans are well positioned to take the White House in 2016, They have strong candidates while the Dems have no "next in line" to Obama
The bad news. They are still Republicans and are prone to forming circular firing squads
What they need to do
1. Get rid of Grover Norquist: This unelected tyrant has managed to place every Republican into a fiscal box with no flexibility. It limits the choices Republicans have to implement good policy
2. Widen the base: Stop attacking Hispanics. Accept gay marriage, it will win points with young voters who look at it as a civil rights issue. Tone down your anti-abortion rhetoric. Still oppose abortion but embrace birth control, allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and a mothers health.
3. Accept Immigration reform: 10 million undocumented aliens. Offer work permits that allow them to stay. Offer those who have skills and jobs a path towards citizenship.
4. Run good candidates: Newt Gingrich, Hermann Cain, Michele Bachmann are not good presidential candidates. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio are good candidates with wide appeal. Allow them to run as moderates. Compassionate Conservatives.
5. Distance yourself from the nutcases in your party: You know who they are. Tell them to STFU
Republicans can do all these things and still be Republicans. It will make you look more human, less dictatorial, more "huggable"
Otherwise, prepare for another shock in 2016
Easy, when Dems don't run a black man that will get 95% of blacks to vote for him.
And Republicans not nominating a moderate and/or Mormon.
That's your answer?
cool......plan on a Democratic President in 2016
Run Romney/Ryan again...
Steelplate
Bluesman
Wingnut ignorance and stupidity will continue to dominate in 2016.
You know what? I hope you're wrong. I hope reason and sanity comes back to the GOP and us Democrats don't go too far left because we feel that the tide has turned.
The big thing for me was Health Care....there were other issues, but health care was the biggie.....
Health Care needed to be dealt with....am I happy with the results? No....I think we should have had a basic/catastrophic public option that would help individuals and small businesses to have coverage for their families if they are self employed and their employees if they own a small business. Supplemental insurance could have been made available for purchase or provided by wealthier companies who want to attract/retain good employees to cover things beyond basic needs and catastrophic accidents/illnesses. We didn't necessarily need single payer, but we needed that Public Option.
The good news. Republicans are well positioned to take the White House in 2016, They have strong candidates while the Dems have no "next in line" to Obama
The bad news. They are still Republicans and are prone to forming circular firing squads
What they need to do
1. Get rid of Grover Norquist: This unelected tyrant has managed to place every Republican into a fiscal box with no flexibility. It limits the choices Republicans have to implement good policy
2. Widen the base: Stop attacking Hispanics. Accept gay marriage, it will win points with young voters who look at it as a civil rights issue. Tone down your anti-abortion rhetoric. Still oppose abortion but embrace birth control, allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and a mothers health.
3. Accept Immigration reform: 10 million undocumented aliens. Offer work permits that allow them to stay. Offer those who have skills and jobs a path towards citizenship.
4. Run good candidates: Newt Gingrich, Hermann Cain, Michele Bachmann are not good presidential candidates. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio are good candidates with wide appeal. Allow them to run as moderates. Compassionate Conservatives.
5. Distance yourself from the nutcases in your party: You know who they are. Tell them to STFU
Republicans can do all these things and still be Republicans. It will make you look more human, less dictatorial, more "huggable"
Otherwise, prepare for another shock in 2016
Easy, when Dems don't run a black man that will get 95% of blacks to vote for him.
And Republicans not nominating a moderate and/or Mormon.
That's your answer?
cool......plan on a Democratic President in 2016
I think Hillary will be the next President, unless she's too old at that point.
I think pubs would have a much better shot of beating dems if dems ran Hiliary.
Right now, abortion is personal responsibility. It is saying I am unable to care for a child and I will not bring it into the world. You may not like it...but it is the law of the land
Nope, personal responsibility is not getting knocked up in the first place. That requires engaging the brain before anything else.
Look women get pregnant. It has been happening ever since there have been women. A pregnant woman has choices. One of those choices is to abort the baby. If you oppose that, I respect you for that
However, you have to give that woman alternatives if you don't want her to abort. Those alternatives are birth control, adoption and keeping the baby. If you call her a slut, berate her for not engaging her brain, make it difficult for her to carry the child to term.....she will choose to abort
If you don't like it...tough
Screwing around and not using birth control demonstrates a failure to engage the brain. Birth control has been cheap and readily available for decades, laziness, stupidity or ignorance would be the only things that would prevent their use. Proper precautions would make the need for alternatives so rare they wouldn't even warrrent this discussion. That's what I mean by personal responsibility.
- Aug 4, 2009
- 280,686
- 139,196
- 2,300
- Thread starter
- #91
Nope, personal responsibility is not getting knocked up in the first place. That requires engaging the brain before anything else.
Look women get pregnant. It has been happening ever since there have been women. A pregnant woman has choices. One of those choices is to abort the baby. If you oppose that, I respect you for that
However, you have to give that woman alternatives if you don't want her to abort. Those alternatives are birth control, adoption and keeping the baby. If you call her a slut, berate her for not engaging her brain, make it difficult for her to carry the child to term.....she will choose to abort
If you don't like it...tough
Screwing around and not using birth control demonstrates a failure to engage the brain. Birth control has been cheap and readily available for decades, laziness, stupidity or ignorance would be the only things that would prevent their use. Proper precautions would make the need for alternatives so rare they wouldn't even warrrent this discussion. That's what I mean by personal responsibility.
So...
Women still get pregnant. What are you going to do about it?
The good news. Republicans are well positioned to take the White House in 2016, They have strong candidates while the Dems have no "next in line" to Obama
The bad news. They are still Republicans and are prone to forming circular firing squads
What they need to do
1. Get rid of Grover Norquist: This unelected tyrant has managed to place every Republican into a fiscal box with no flexibility. It limits the choices Republicans have to implement good policy
2. Widen the base: Stop attacking Hispanics. Accept gay marriage, it will win points with young voters who look at it as a civil rights issue. Tone down your anti-abortion rhetoric. Still oppose abortion but embrace birth control, allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and a mothers health.
3. Accept Immigration reform: 10 million undocumented aliens. Offer work permits that allow them to stay. Offer those who have skills and jobs a path towards citizenship.
4. Run good candidates: Newt Gingrich, Hermann Cain, Michele Bachmann are not good presidential candidates. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio are good candidates with wide appeal. Allow them to run as moderates. Compassionate Conservatives.
5. Distance yourself from the nutcases in your party: You know who they are. Tell them to STFU
Republicans can do all these things and still be Republicans. It will make you look more human, less dictatorial, more "huggable"
Otherwise, prepare for another shock in 2016
All great ideas. I can't find a bad one in the bunch.
Look women get pregnant. It has been happening ever since there have been women. A pregnant woman has choices. One of those choices is to abort the baby. If you oppose that, I respect you for that
However, you have to give that woman alternatives if you don't want her to abort. Those alternatives are birth control, adoption and keeping the baby. If you call her a slut, berate her for not engaging her brain, make it difficult for her to carry the child to term.....she will choose to abort
If you don't like it...tough
Screwing around and not using birth control demonstrates a failure to engage the brain. Birth control has been cheap and readily available for decades, laziness, stupidity or ignorance would be the only things that would prevent their use. Proper precautions would make the need for alternatives so rare they wouldn't even warrrent this discussion. That's what I mean by personal responsibility.
So...
Women still get pregnant. What are you going to do about it?
Let them die?
The good news. Republicans are well positioned to take the White House in 2016, They have strong candidates while the Dems have no "next in line" to Obama
The bad news. They are still Republicans and are prone to forming circular firing squads
What they need to do
1. Get rid of Grover Norquist: This unelected tyrant has managed to place every Republican into a fiscal box with no flexibility. It limits the choices Republicans have to implement good policy
2. Widen the base: Stop attacking Hispanics. Accept gay marriage, it will win points with young voters who look at it as a civil rights issue. Tone down your anti-abortion rhetoric. Still oppose abortion but embrace birth control, allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and a mothers health.
3. Accept Immigration reform: 10 million undocumented aliens. Offer work permits that allow them to stay. Offer those who have skills and jobs a path towards citizenship.
4. Run good candidates: Newt Gingrich, Hermann Cain, Michele Bachmann are not good presidential candidates. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio are good candidates with wide appeal. Allow them to run as moderates. Compassionate Conservatives.
5. Distance yourself from the nutcases in your party: You know who they are. Tell them to STFU
Republicans can do all these things and still be Republicans. It will make you look more human, less dictatorial, more "huggable"
Otherwise, prepare for another shock in 2016
Republicans aren't well-positioned to take the WH in 2016. First of all, they have no standout candidate. They don't even have an acknowledged party leader at this point. Secondly, their 2012 'also rans' are a pretty sorry lot. And finally, the GOP threw everything they had at Obama, and used every low down tactic from their Karl Rove bag of tricks. And yet, despite a Super Pac rail car full of secret special interest money to fund political ads in every swing state in every close Senate race as well as the presidential race, they got their clock cleaned. And if that wasn't enough, they managed to unapologetically alienate just about every voting block in the country at one time or another. It reminds me of something I heard said many years ago when one person simply can't understand what another person is doing and why because it seems that any explanation would defy logic. He turns to the other person and says the following:
"You're behaving as if stupidity were a virtue, and you're determined to prove that you are, far and away, the most virtuous person in town."
Way too early to make those comments in my view.
The GOP will have a BIG 2014 midterm. The GOP has 13 seats to defend in the Senate, the Democrats have 20 and some vulnerable members such as Al Franken in MN, Begich of AK, Landrieu (sp?) of LA, and Kay Hagan in NC.
The same dynamic played out on Tuesday however and we saw how that went. I don't think the GOP will be dumb enough to cough up the football again in consecutive elections. Come to think of it, they did run Angle and O'Donnell in 2010 so maybe they will be that moronic.
Anyway, that is the Senate. House seats are gerrymandered to produce a D or R and if a TEA partier runs they should win just based on $$$. They will get publicity for winning regardless of whether or not a TEA party candidate was needed to clinch the victory in the district.
So it will be a replay of 2010 in terms of "impact" but as we saw, the TEA party isn't built for NFL-style campaigning.
Look women get pregnant. It has been happening ever since there have been women. A pregnant woman has choices. One of those choices is to abort the baby. If you oppose that, I respect you for that
However, you have to give that woman alternatives if you don't want her to abort. Those alternatives are birth control, adoption and keeping the baby. If you call her a slut, berate her for not engaging her brain, make it difficult for her to carry the child to term.....she will choose to abort
If you don't like it...tough
Screwing around and not using birth control demonstrates a failure to engage the brain. Birth control has been cheap and readily available for decades, laziness, stupidity or ignorance would be the only things that would prevent their use. Proper precautions would make the need for alternatives so rare they wouldn't even warrrent this discussion. That's what I mean by personal responsibility.
So...
Women still get pregnant. What are you going to do about it?
Only thing I'm going to do is pass on the debts you created to your children, and their children and their children and their children, along with a note to blame you for not holding others personally responsible. They can thank you for their limited opportunity and crushing taxes.
Nosmo King
Gold Member
A lesson lost. the answer to the Conservative woes is not to double down on the hard ass tactic. you lost women, Latinos, Asians, folks under 35 and forget about ever seeing an African American vote! And how's that winning elections thing working out? To be rigidly ideological and to eat your own Republicans by painting them as RINOs is a steadily loosing strategy. The old white guy slice of the pie is getting smaller when compared with the actual demographics of this nation.Don't you just love when Liberals try to tell us how to win an election? Or even better, how to be conservative.
But the bigger problem is that rigid ideology. By imposing such a narrow template on candidates, and by extension and worse, your fellow Americans, how do you expect to win at politics? The whole notion of American politics was established on the ideal of consensus building and compromise. Doubling down on a false sense of political and intellectual superiority while castigating and alienating all those who stray from the tenets of your faith is a recipe for political disaster.
For my money, the sooner Conservatives come to this realization, the better for everyone. Should they never relent, the contemporary brand of Conservatism will be irrelevant in the body politic of American life. And that will be better for everyone too.
BeAChooser
Rookie
- Nov 8, 2012
- 4
- 0
- 1
How do Republicans get the White House in 2016?
By not nominating another Romney.
By instead, nominating a candidate who …
(1) can go after ALL of the other side's vulnerabilities rather than shy away from some because of his own record on those issues. Romney never effectively attacked Obamacare (Obama's #1 vulnerability according to the polls) in large part because of Romneycare (whose author helped formulate Obamacare) and because he refused to repudiate Romneycare during the campaign. He threw away his best issue. Romney also never effectively attacked the left's environmental nonsense because of his own record in supporting Global Warming and other such nonsense. What a lost opportunity to show the public how Democrats have deceived them on this issue.
(2) will go after the media rather than let them continue to lie about Republicans and most everything else. Election season was the perfect time to confront the mainstream media on it's liberal bias, because of the many opportunities to address them on live TV. But Romney threw away that opportunity. You should listen to Larry Elder on this subject.
(3) will effectively attack the Democratic Party's socialist ideology. Romney, instead said Obama is not a socialist. Now Romney either didn't believe that or he is utterly clueless. He could have named the scores of hardcore socialists and communists in Obama's past and present inner circle. If you like I can post a list of 68 such people and defend the assertion with plenty of sourced material. In fact, I can name and defend the assertion that seven members of Obama's cabinet meet that standard. That's a stunning indication of how influential socialism and communism are to Obama's thinking. No President in history had anywhere near as many hardcore socialists and communists in his inner circle. And that's an incomplete list! Yet, Romney completely ignored this issue and instead called Obama a "nice guy" who wants what is best for America … which is, in fact, debatable. In doing so, he dismissed Obama's second biggest vulnerability out of hand … his extremely radical ideology. And I suspect the next Democrat candidate will be no further to the right. Look back the last few decades and you see the Democratic Party and their candidates moving *progressively* to the left. So instead of ignoring it, confront it.
(4) won't ignore foreign policy. Afterall, defending the nation from foreign threats and promoting the ideal of AMERICA abroad should be the number one job of the President and government. Romney basically ignored Obama's failed and dangerous foreign policy failures. It was a mistake for him not to focus on the lies and implications of Benghazi. It was a mistake not to focus on the harm Obama has done with respect to our allies … like Great Britain and Israel. It was a mistake not to highlight over and over all the radical muslims Obama's brought into his administration. It was a mistake not to focus on Obama's off-mic promise to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. These are facts that perhaps would have motivated many of the Republicans who didn't vote to vote. These are facts that might have swayed some Democrats that did vote for Obama not to do so.
(5) won't ignore Democrat criminality. Romney completely ignored the various instances of possible criminality in the Obama Administration and the failure of Obama's Department Of Justice to uphold the law … like in the Fast and Furious Scandal, the cases of voter intimidation/fraud, and Solyndra. And there were many others. Romney hardly ever mentioned them. The failure of the Bush administration to hold the Clinton administration accountable for the crimes they committed is the reason Obama came to power and staffed his administration with Clinton administration holdovers. I'll give you one example … the Riady Non-Refund. Recall that after Bush took the oath of office, Indonesian Billionaire James Riady pled guilty to providing millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds to Clinton and the DNC. With that money they tampered with the election process. As part of the plea agreement, Riady stood in front of a judge in a California courtroom and told the judge (under the requirement that he tell the truth or lose the deal) that contrary to what Clinton and the DNC had publically stated, the illegal funds had NOT been returned to him. The judge asked the prosecuting attorney if this was true and the attorney said to the best of his knowledge, "yes". And then nothing happened. There was never one more word about the matter by Bush's DOJ or FBI. And of course the liberal mainstream media completely ignored this. I called the California FBI at the time and asked if the FBI was investigating this. And they hung up on me. Find a Republican candidate who won't let that happen when elected … who will impartially enforce our laws … and you'll find the Republican base and many Democrats supportive.
(6) will publically highlight and shame the 47% (or more, now) of voters who might vote for Democrats based on promises of *free* stuff. Romney basically ignored those people, other than saying something to his wealthy backers behind closed doors … which then the media spun. Instead of apologizing for the remark, he should have vigorously defended the remark and explained why that behavior is ultimately detrimental to the country and those who think they are getting *free* stuff. He gave up on them instead of trying to educate them as to their folly … which they definitely need to be educated about if this country's to survive. Instead, he just assumed the other 53% would outvote them. That was a big mistake … perhaps the biggest of the election. I think a very powerful case can be made against such behavior. One strong enough to deter many of them from such behavior. Start by just quoting the Founding Fathers to the media at every opportunity ... something our public schools fail to do. Take Ben Franklin for example -- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Or Thomas Jefferson -- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." And quote what our enemies said. Like Karl Marx -- "Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation." Like Nikita Khrushcev -- "We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." An election is the perfect time to insert these quotes into the public discourse and make people THINK.
(7) will confront, not ignore, the foolishness of the poor and black communities over the years in trusting Democrats to help them. Romney should have pointed out over and over and over that it was Republicans who fought for Civil Rights against such Democrat icons like Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. He should have focused attention at every opportunity on how Democratic policies have hurt the poor and minorities economically. That blacks have been hurt economically more than any other group under Obama. How the War On Poverty backfired as far as the poor and blacks are concerned. How capitalism was busy ending poverty and racism … until that Democrat conceived WOP began and institutionalized a minimum poverty rate and made blacks dependent on government ... victims of government. But he didn't. He again missed the opportunity.
(8) will have faith in the ideas of our party's best thinkers. Romney showed minimal faith in the ONLY solution on the table regarding the debt … Ryan's Plan For Properity. A plan that Obama's own debt commission applauded. I had hope when Romney picked Ryan, but now I wonder if it was just a ploy to win Wisconsin electoral votes. Ryan's biggest strength was how clear he can talk about the economy and debt, and what it will mean for the future. But Romney never capitalized on that … and thus gave up another vulnerability that Obama had in this election. I never saw one effective television ad attacking Obama regarding the debt or highlighting Ryan's plan to deal with it. Why didn't the Romney campaign make an ad out of Ryan educating Obama on the Debt? Or a few simple graphs from Ryan's report might have done wonders in starting a conversation amongst Republicans who didn't vote and among Democrats who'd decided not to vote for Obama but then didn't vote for Romney. Romney seemed to think it was all about jobs … when it was really about *free* stuff and the debt we are saddling our children (and their children) with in order to pay for that free stuff. Both Republicans and Democrats care about their children's future. We should have used that. We should have quoted the Founders again. Like Thomas Jefferson -- "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." That's a principle that would have been hard for Democrats to attack. Likewise, the Founder's notions on small government would have made excellent ads. But instead we got ads with little impact ... because Romney really wasn't a small government proponent. His past proves that and it showed. He was the wrong candidate.
(9) will entertain as he educates. Romney was pretty boring at times. He had his moments but he was not inspiring in most of his speeches. He didn't have real fire most of the time. Didn't we learn our lesson with Dole? We needed someone who could compete in the passion department with Obama. And not just once in a debate when Obama came unprepared. You can't tell me that there weren't principled Republicans with passion and good speaking/debating ability out there. There were, but the Establishment, aided by certain columnists and pundits, and certain Talk Radio and Fox News hosts, convinced the majority of Republicans that Romney was the only one who was *electable*. And ignored some of the dishonesties that Romney used to attack his Republican challengers. Obviously, they were either wrong about him being *electable* or we are a party that has no chance of winning elections. I prefer to think they were wrong. I prefer to think that someone like Gingrich, for example, could have won. Because we needed a candidate who could shame the media into examining the above issues and their implications so that the public at large would be exposed to those notions.
All in all, Romney did just what I feared. And thanks to his performance, perhaps no Republican candidate will now be able to break the stranglehold of the liberal media and the culture of "taking" and "dependency" that Democrats have created. Because their victory in this election taught them something very dangerous … that they can outvote us … that lies work … and that media control is enough to ensure their base remains ignorant. It's beggars and choosers, and the beggars won. It seems to me the ONLY option we have at this point is to change the thinking of the beggars. Make them uncomfortable with the idea they will be STEALING from their children and their children's children, not just from the *rich*.
Enough said.
By not nominating another Romney.
By instead, nominating a candidate who …
(1) can go after ALL of the other side's vulnerabilities rather than shy away from some because of his own record on those issues. Romney never effectively attacked Obamacare (Obama's #1 vulnerability according to the polls) in large part because of Romneycare (whose author helped formulate Obamacare) and because he refused to repudiate Romneycare during the campaign. He threw away his best issue. Romney also never effectively attacked the left's environmental nonsense because of his own record in supporting Global Warming and other such nonsense. What a lost opportunity to show the public how Democrats have deceived them on this issue.
(2) will go after the media rather than let them continue to lie about Republicans and most everything else. Election season was the perfect time to confront the mainstream media on it's liberal bias, because of the many opportunities to address them on live TV. But Romney threw away that opportunity. You should listen to Larry Elder on this subject.
(3) will effectively attack the Democratic Party's socialist ideology. Romney, instead said Obama is not a socialist. Now Romney either didn't believe that or he is utterly clueless. He could have named the scores of hardcore socialists and communists in Obama's past and present inner circle. If you like I can post a list of 68 such people and defend the assertion with plenty of sourced material. In fact, I can name and defend the assertion that seven members of Obama's cabinet meet that standard. That's a stunning indication of how influential socialism and communism are to Obama's thinking. No President in history had anywhere near as many hardcore socialists and communists in his inner circle. And that's an incomplete list! Yet, Romney completely ignored this issue and instead called Obama a "nice guy" who wants what is best for America … which is, in fact, debatable. In doing so, he dismissed Obama's second biggest vulnerability out of hand … his extremely radical ideology. And I suspect the next Democrat candidate will be no further to the right. Look back the last few decades and you see the Democratic Party and their candidates moving *progressively* to the left. So instead of ignoring it, confront it.
(4) won't ignore foreign policy. Afterall, defending the nation from foreign threats and promoting the ideal of AMERICA abroad should be the number one job of the President and government. Romney basically ignored Obama's failed and dangerous foreign policy failures. It was a mistake for him not to focus on the lies and implications of Benghazi. It was a mistake not to focus on the harm Obama has done with respect to our allies … like Great Britain and Israel. It was a mistake not to highlight over and over all the radical muslims Obama's brought into his administration. It was a mistake not to focus on Obama's off-mic promise to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. These are facts that perhaps would have motivated many of the Republicans who didn't vote to vote. These are facts that might have swayed some Democrats that did vote for Obama not to do so.
(5) won't ignore Democrat criminality. Romney completely ignored the various instances of possible criminality in the Obama Administration and the failure of Obama's Department Of Justice to uphold the law … like in the Fast and Furious Scandal, the cases of voter intimidation/fraud, and Solyndra. And there were many others. Romney hardly ever mentioned them. The failure of the Bush administration to hold the Clinton administration accountable for the crimes they committed is the reason Obama came to power and staffed his administration with Clinton administration holdovers. I'll give you one example … the Riady Non-Refund. Recall that after Bush took the oath of office, Indonesian Billionaire James Riady pled guilty to providing millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds to Clinton and the DNC. With that money they tampered with the election process. As part of the plea agreement, Riady stood in front of a judge in a California courtroom and told the judge (under the requirement that he tell the truth or lose the deal) that contrary to what Clinton and the DNC had publically stated, the illegal funds had NOT been returned to him. The judge asked the prosecuting attorney if this was true and the attorney said to the best of his knowledge, "yes". And then nothing happened. There was never one more word about the matter by Bush's DOJ or FBI. And of course the liberal mainstream media completely ignored this. I called the California FBI at the time and asked if the FBI was investigating this. And they hung up on me. Find a Republican candidate who won't let that happen when elected … who will impartially enforce our laws … and you'll find the Republican base and many Democrats supportive.
(6) will publically highlight and shame the 47% (or more, now) of voters who might vote for Democrats based on promises of *free* stuff. Romney basically ignored those people, other than saying something to his wealthy backers behind closed doors … which then the media spun. Instead of apologizing for the remark, he should have vigorously defended the remark and explained why that behavior is ultimately detrimental to the country and those who think they are getting *free* stuff. He gave up on them instead of trying to educate them as to their folly … which they definitely need to be educated about if this country's to survive. Instead, he just assumed the other 53% would outvote them. That was a big mistake … perhaps the biggest of the election. I think a very powerful case can be made against such behavior. One strong enough to deter many of them from such behavior. Start by just quoting the Founding Fathers to the media at every opportunity ... something our public schools fail to do. Take Ben Franklin for example -- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Or Thomas Jefferson -- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." And quote what our enemies said. Like Karl Marx -- "Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation." Like Nikita Khrushcev -- "We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." An election is the perfect time to insert these quotes into the public discourse and make people THINK.
(7) will confront, not ignore, the foolishness of the poor and black communities over the years in trusting Democrats to help them. Romney should have pointed out over and over and over that it was Republicans who fought for Civil Rights against such Democrat icons like Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. He should have focused attention at every opportunity on how Democratic policies have hurt the poor and minorities economically. That blacks have been hurt economically more than any other group under Obama. How the War On Poverty backfired as far as the poor and blacks are concerned. How capitalism was busy ending poverty and racism … until that Democrat conceived WOP began and institutionalized a minimum poverty rate and made blacks dependent on government ... victims of government. But he didn't. He again missed the opportunity.
(8) will have faith in the ideas of our party's best thinkers. Romney showed minimal faith in the ONLY solution on the table regarding the debt … Ryan's Plan For Properity. A plan that Obama's own debt commission applauded. I had hope when Romney picked Ryan, but now I wonder if it was just a ploy to win Wisconsin electoral votes. Ryan's biggest strength was how clear he can talk about the economy and debt, and what it will mean for the future. But Romney never capitalized on that … and thus gave up another vulnerability that Obama had in this election. I never saw one effective television ad attacking Obama regarding the debt or highlighting Ryan's plan to deal with it. Why didn't the Romney campaign make an ad out of Ryan educating Obama on the Debt? Or a few simple graphs from Ryan's report might have done wonders in starting a conversation amongst Republicans who didn't vote and among Democrats who'd decided not to vote for Obama but then didn't vote for Romney. Romney seemed to think it was all about jobs … when it was really about *free* stuff and the debt we are saddling our children (and their children) with in order to pay for that free stuff. Both Republicans and Democrats care about their children's future. We should have used that. We should have quoted the Founders again. Like Thomas Jefferson -- "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." That's a principle that would have been hard for Democrats to attack. Likewise, the Founder's notions on small government would have made excellent ads. But instead we got ads with little impact ... because Romney really wasn't a small government proponent. His past proves that and it showed. He was the wrong candidate.
(9) will entertain as he educates. Romney was pretty boring at times. He had his moments but he was not inspiring in most of his speeches. He didn't have real fire most of the time. Didn't we learn our lesson with Dole? We needed someone who could compete in the passion department with Obama. And not just once in a debate when Obama came unprepared. You can't tell me that there weren't principled Republicans with passion and good speaking/debating ability out there. There were, but the Establishment, aided by certain columnists and pundits, and certain Talk Radio and Fox News hosts, convinced the majority of Republicans that Romney was the only one who was *electable*. And ignored some of the dishonesties that Romney used to attack his Republican challengers. Obviously, they were either wrong about him being *electable* or we are a party that has no chance of winning elections. I prefer to think they were wrong. I prefer to think that someone like Gingrich, for example, could have won. Because we needed a candidate who could shame the media into examining the above issues and their implications so that the public at large would be exposed to those notions.
All in all, Romney did just what I feared. And thanks to his performance, perhaps no Republican candidate will now be able to break the stranglehold of the liberal media and the culture of "taking" and "dependency" that Democrats have created. Because their victory in this election taught them something very dangerous … that they can outvote us … that lies work … and that media control is enough to ensure their base remains ignorant. It's beggars and choosers, and the beggars won. It seems to me the ONLY option we have at this point is to change the thinking of the beggars. Make them uncomfortable with the idea they will be STEALING from their children and their children's children, not just from the *rich*.
Enough said.
Last edited:
Nosmo King
Gold Member
We get the politics we ask for, in spite of not knowing we're asking for it. When political punditry is couched in the language of fear and delivered with tantalizing catch phrases familiar, but misunderstood by the hoy poloy, like Socialism, Communism, Fascism, that same hoy poloy will run with them, simply because they know those things are "bad" and "un-American".
But those are the words of flame throwers and demagogues. And those words are destructive. They gin up fear, mistrust and hatred. So, when things don't work out the way the insular, uninformed and politically ignorant want, the natural reaction is impending doom and certain catastrophe. The narrow and rigid ideology that embraces such discourse is then drawn to a razor's edge, ripe with near violent retribution. A very dangerous place for an electorate and greater society facing real and serious problems. And even more dangerous when the solutions for those problems can only be arrived at by the same means every problem that has faced this nation: political discourse and pragmatic compromise.
How do we extricate ourselves from this situation? Do we undertake sincere dialogue with those in political opposition? That would be the viable and expedient course. But there are some who have placed political ideology above solution, above love of country, above any practicality.
Perhaps, like most flames that throw out heat but no light, the extremists who hold our political life hostage will quickly burn out before any real damage is done. Maybe, just maybe, their recent failures at the polls will show them the error of their ways and sanity instead of coarse shouting will once again take the field. We can only hope.
But those are the words of flame throwers and demagogues. And those words are destructive. They gin up fear, mistrust and hatred. So, when things don't work out the way the insular, uninformed and politically ignorant want, the natural reaction is impending doom and certain catastrophe. The narrow and rigid ideology that embraces such discourse is then drawn to a razor's edge, ripe with near violent retribution. A very dangerous place for an electorate and greater society facing real and serious problems. And even more dangerous when the solutions for those problems can only be arrived at by the same means every problem that has faced this nation: political discourse and pragmatic compromise.
How do we extricate ourselves from this situation? Do we undertake sincere dialogue with those in political opposition? That would be the viable and expedient course. But there are some who have placed political ideology above solution, above love of country, above any practicality.
Perhaps, like most flames that throw out heat but no light, the extremists who hold our political life hostage will quickly burn out before any real damage is done. Maybe, just maybe, their recent failures at the polls will show them the error of their ways and sanity instead of coarse shouting will once again take the field. We can only hope.
Last edited:
More importantly, how can we prevent the Republicans from taking the White House in 2016?
Simple, balance the budget and continue protecting Obamacare, once people see how well it works it will turn into a big positive for Democrats.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 440
- Replies
- 350
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 185
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 345
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 41
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 206
- Replies
- 297
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8018
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 467
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-