Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-27 15:51||
#2 But with the MSM covering Obama's butt so very well, some Republicans might be forgiven for thinking that a real conservative like Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich had no chance at all.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-27 15:56||
#3 A real conservative might have. But not Perry or Gingrich
Posted by European Conservative 2012-11-27 16:14||
#4 So what we are left with now is better?
The Champ won because he and his Afro-Chicago machine cheated. You'll never convince me otherwise. The election process (no ID required voting), along with the Rule of Law in this nation are dead!
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-27 16:18||
#5 Of the choices we had, the best were Perry and Pawlenty. Romney was always among the worst. I said so during the primaries and kept my mouth shut during the campaign. Now that's it's all over "I told you so" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain, Romney -- how many times do we have to play the same losing strategy?
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-27 16:20||
#6 I'll respectfully disagree lblis. While I'm no huge O'Reilly fan, he hit it dead on the night of the election wen he said it was always about the "free stuff". We've hit the tipping point and the host is now being eaten!
Axelrod and others pointing to a flawed R&R ticket simply shifts the focus away from the real corruption that assaulted our liberty. They want you to continue to pound the dead horse.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-27 16:29||
#7 B -
Look at the numbers. Did D's turn out or did R's stay home? If it was the former then you may be on to something, but even with all the 100%+++ reporting districts Champ's numbers were still down.
R's stayed home. Why? Not because D's got free phones.
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-27 16:32||
#8 Well, the word early last spring was that Romney would have trouble motivating the base, and it looks as if that turned out to bite the Pubs.
It's a little strange: the Dems never have this problem; every Dem I know will hold his/her nose and vote 'D' regardless. But the Pubs are pickier in their voting, and it looks as though it cost them the election.
A real conservative might not have liked Mittens, but if you couldn't tell the difference between him and Champ then you weren't paying attention.
Posted by Steve White 2012-11-27 16:43||
#9 A real conservative might not have liked Mittens, but if you couldn't tell the difference between him and Champ then you weren't paying attention.
Posted by Steve White
Amen and amen.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-27 16:59||
#10 But the Pubs are pickier in their voting
Come on, driving the car off the cliff at 40 mph or 120 mph is still driving the car off the cliff. Math isn't subject to political influence anymore than gravity. Only the sudden deceleration at the end of the drop is going to stop the car because no one has the standing or guts to do what's necessary before the precipice.
We're pretty much divided as Adams cited for the War of Independence, a third for, a third against, and a third siting on the side line. How many non-Trunk eligibles didn't bother to register let alone show up? Certainly more than enough to alter the final vote. Heck The One lost 9 million votes from 2008. They have just as much concern about that kind of drop as a foreshadowing for future elections.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-11-27 17:02||
#11 No surprise when over half the electorate cannot name both of their Senators.
Too many people saw Romney as Gordon Gekko, Offshore accounts, Bain, etc. You cannot educate the unsophisticated dumbed down American on how it was o.k., Romney's really for the little guy. This is the one issue O won in the exit polls by 81% to 18%.
It looks like the same RINO usual suspects are starting to promote Jebb Bush. The press will help dangle hope for him as a viable alternative like McCain then cut his huevos off after he gets the nomination.
Only one Republican Presidential Candidate has received a majority of votes since 1988 and that was W by a razor thin margin in 2004. But in the 2010 Mid-Terms, with the help of the Tea Party, the Trunks slaughtered the Dems.
Could it be when Romney ran away from the Tea Party, they said fine, go elect yourself or something similar.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2012-11-27 17:15||
#12 Repubs of conservative or libertarian stripe stayed home in quantity. Figured the only difference between Zero and Mittens is the 'time to impact' so might as well get it over with. That, and for many social conservatives, a moral opposition to voting for Romney. I contend Romney is a good man, and a far more able executive than any candidate in a long time. But a majority of voters wanted a president who "cared for them" and that wasn't Romney. It's not that he 'cared' for a majority and not for the rest, like Zero sold people, but that he did not feel 'caring' belonged in the KJRs of a CEO.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-11-27 17:16||
#13 Glenmore, if that were the case Romney would have won Ohio and lost Louisiana.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-11-27 17:27||
#14 If you want to kvetch about Romney and the Republican electorate at least take the time to look at the states he carried versus the swing states he didn't.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-11-27 17:30||
#15 We're suffering from the paralysis of analysis. It was simply the "free stuff" and widespread cheating in swing states. Some urban areas had NO votes for R&R? Others had 125% or registered voter turnout? Think about it.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-27 17:31||
#16 I agree w/Glenmore & Beso.
balls out rant on:
--Romney, good family man, but a RINO, yes. Anyone w/an IQ over 21 should've realised the difference between him and Maobama. Unfortunately, his tactics on the ground sucked. He didn't get the base to vote and I think the numbers proved it.
-My overall election opinion -- 'Bammer Voters wanted their free stuff and they know Obama Claus would deliver.
-face it, we are the problem. (We, meaning the electorate). My jaded POV is that our electorate is quite stupid+self-serving+self-asorbed. No punches pulled here. 50% of the American electorate are morons.
-In Ohio, a state I know very well, The Champ won by being the big GM Savior -- with our tax money. Romeny's quote (as I read it) was actually about protecting the GM/Dodge consumer during the proposed bankruptcy. Romney was right to a degree. Personally, Gov't should never be in the pick winners/losers in business game - sets bad precedents.
-minorities (esp blacks) are either racist or committed to the gov't tit so badly that they are a negative in the Patriotic column. That's right, I said it. Same goes for the single woman vote. Too stupid to realize that Roe V. Wade won't be overturned any time soon (if ever), and too immature/lazy/infantile to buy their own contraceptives. Case in point - Fluke. A 30 yr old adult basically saying they are too f*cking incompetent to piece together a plan to save $20.00 a month to buy condoms.
--sick of hearing about the "poor". (this has less to do w/the election, just my pet-rock) If you have a plasma T.V., AC, a car, and are fat - you ain't f*cking poor. You live better than Brit monarchy did 100 yrs ago. How does anyone w/almost no skin in the game via federal income taxes get to vote on my taxes via federal elections?? Which leads to my last point (I have more but have to get off the 'puter right now) -----No representation w/out taxation!
Posted by Broadhead6 2012-11-27 18:04||
#17 Y'all are ranting about what motivates *you* to vote.
Well, something like 47% of us will vote for anyone with an 'R' behind his name. Same is true of the other side.
Now we are told--for decades now--that the way to win the squishy middle is with a squishy candidate. We are told this despite all the evidence. Our squishy candidates aren't winning the presidency.
The squishy middle is emotional. It is poorly informed. It has no patience for nuances about federalism when we are talking about universal healthcare. Universal healthcare is universal healthcare. Done. Over.
The way to win these emotional retards is by getting excited. We have to get excited. Not just hold your nose and vote for this year's worthless RINO because he is better than the other guy. And we can't get excited about people like Dole, McCain and Romney.
You may pontificate until the end of time about how Republican voters should support these unexciting candidates. Fact is, it isn't working.
So let's just agree here and now that, as a matter of strategy, no more RINO's need apply for the office of presidency. And, if we wind up losing with this strategy for nearly 3 decades in a row, then and only then will you have cause to complain.
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-27 18:26||
#18 The election process (no ID required voting), along with the Rule of Law in this nation are dead!
My daughter was registered in our little city. She moved to LA but neglected to change her registration. She also neglected to come home and vote on election day. So there was her name on the list of registered voters that the little old ladies at the polling place had. But they weren't checking anybody's ID. All you had to do was claim that you were Daughter Uluque, sign her name and you were good to go. Those nice old ladies would never know the difference. I showed them my drivers license. They laughed at me but I showed it to them anyway. I couldn't give them a hard time because they really are nice old ladies and they just wouldn't get it.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-11-27 19:00||
#19 Repubs of conservative or libertarian stripe stayed home in quantity. Figured the only difference between Zero and Mittens is the 'time to impact' so might as well get it over with.
Yep. Republican of libertarian bent here and that describes me exactly.
I preferred Obama to McCain in '08 on the theory that one Obama term would move us more quickly to the unavoidable hard stop at the bottom whereas a President McCain would have kept us on roughly the same trajectory but at a moderately slower pace. Why prolong the pain?
This round I didn't much care who won. It was a contest between hard rapidly-implemented socialism and the softer socialism by abdication perpetuated by a Republican Party which has been singularly unsuccessful at even slowing the leftward lurch of the nation for decades now. The only difference is how quickly we'll arrive at the bottom of the cliff and whether the shock will come rapidly enough to awaken a significant portion of the electorate. Let's get it over with.
Face it: there is no viable alternative among the two major parties to the present debt ridden welfare state politics. Your choices are between a faster or slower journey to nearly identical destinations.
Who among the Republicans is a true voice for a small (pre-Great Depression sized) federal government? Paul Ryan is held forth as a champion of small government and a Tea Party favorite but even his budget blueprint calls for an ever-increasing federal government; rather than rolling back and eventually eliminating the welfare state he's proposing a way for the federal government to continue down that road but do so more efficiently.
The hard cold truth is that both parties are addicted to the power of a massive statist centralized federal government with the only significant difference between the two being the ways in which they wish to exercise those powers over us.
Wake me when one of the parties dredges up someone worth voting for.
Posted by Hupeagum Schwarzeneggar3800 2012-11-27 19:20||
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-11-27 19:28||
#21 Sorry - can someone remove the duplicate post? Twitchy finger on the 'Post' button....
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-11-27 19:29||
#22 So, other libertarian Republicans (not me) stayed home because Romney wasn't pure enough?
I'll believe the country's at a tipping point when you all ACT as if it's at a tipping point.
Oh, wait ..... I KNOW it's at a tipping point, and that the difference between Obama and Romney could have been the difference between going over the cliff and pulling a little way back.
"Might as well get it over with", huh? Well, friend - you and others like you now own the results which are already playing out.
It's your responsibility now.
Posted by lotp 2012-11-27 19:57||
#23 "It's your responsibility now."
Funny. That's what I said when Romney was nominated :-)
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-27 20:05||
#24 I blame Barbie, childhood advertisements, and free birth control pills.
Posted by Water Modem 2012-11-27 20:09||
#25 Sadly I think Beoseker is right. It was the free stuff. I know several people who's reason for voting was "We're screwed either way, might as well get free stuff while we can". They just didn't believe Republicans would change anything, or that moderate Romney would either. I still believe the last debate where Romney agreed with Obama so much undid what was gained in the first debate.
Young-age: It's going to disappear, might as well get some now.
Middle-age: It's going to disappear, better get some before it's too late.
Old-age: I'll be dead when it's gone, might as well enjoy it to the fullest.
I think those three attitudes sums up the slim margins that handed Obama that election.
Posted by Charles 2012-11-27 21:30||
#26 Who is champ?
Posted by Phaith Grique4599 2012-11-27 22:02||
#27 Who is champ?
An alternate nickname for our beloved President Obama, Phaith Grique4599, preferred by Steve White, the salmon highlighted moderator, among others.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-11-27 22:32||
#28 So, other libertarian Republicans (not me) stayed home because Romney wasn't pure enough?
Nothing at all to do with Romney not being "pure enough" and everything to do with his not being a real alternative. Should one wish to travel from point A to point B a train heading towards point C in a direction opposite point B is not a good option no matter whether the train moves at 20 MPH, 50 MPH or 100 MPH. However, given the inevitability of arriving at the undesired destination, there may be some merit to taking the fastest available option so that one can begin the journey back sooner rather than later.
"Might as well get it over with", huh? Well, friend - you and others like you now own the results which are already playing out.
A few others to whom you may wish to assign blame:
- Those who elected William Howard Taft who in turn proposed the modern income tax and an associated Constitutional Amendment (eventually ratified as the 16th Amendment). Taxation of income is the food on which our federal leviathan gorges, without it our central government would never have reached a fraction of its present size.
- Those who elected Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and reelected him three more times largely on the basis of his massive expansion of federal power and his initiation of the federal welfare state. At this point our present arc was probably unavoidable.
- Those who elected President Lyndon Johnson whose lasting achievements, Medicare and the War on Poverty have bankrupted the nation while retaining nearly impenetrable popular support.
- Those who elected Richard Nixon whose lasting achievement, the Environmental Protection Agency, will eventually destroy more economic activity in the United States than most other agencies combined.
- Those who elected Ronald Reagan whose economic policies generated the tax revenues that made possible the continued rapid expansion of the federal government by the next several administrations and whose other domestic policies did nothing to shrink it during either of his terms in office.
- Those who saddled Reagan with the Bush family who have for a generation worked tirelessly to ensure that conservatives and libertarians remain on the fringes of the Republican Party establishment.
- Those who elected George W. Bush whose rate of increase in federal spending on domestic programs vastly outstripped that of his Democratic predecessor.
See a pattern there? Bit by bit, brick by brick, program by program, agency by agency via tax after tax both parties have, for roughly a century now, constructed the federal leviathan. To believe that squishy moderates like Senator McCain or Governor Romney, each of whom stands far to the left of past liberal Democrats like, say, John F. Kennedy (who would probably be considered a right-wing extremist today), are real options to even begin to undo that damage is, well, laughable. At best.
Posted by Hupeagum Schwarzeneggar3800 2012-11-27 22:42||
#29 Until this newest generation feels real pain, there will be no real gain in this day and age of the United States of America.
Posted by Voldemort Grereth1352 2012-11-27 23:45||