Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Stoic Patriot on November 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I realize this is a dead thread…but, for what it is worth, I was not referring to SP, nor anyone else. I was also not blaming the loss on Romney, who I think ran a pretty good campaign, given his weaknesses, as well as the party’s weaknesses, and the overwhelming full court press by the MSM to re-elect Obama. My entire point was that the bitterness left over from the GOP primaries combined with the negative “kill Romney” strategy of the Obama campaign to defeat Mitt. Republicans who did not vote for Romney because they thought Newt or Santorum should have gotten the nomination should not complain about anything that Obama does…they knowingly helped to elect him.

We also need to start now – US Senate candidatesin 2014.

Face it, Dems can get away with saying anything, lying, throwing out numbers that make zero sense. We can’t breathe sideways without the press coming down on our guys. I think we ought to start taking this kind of bias into consideration. The minute the MS comes down on us, we defend with the facts. 47% – rebuttal – it’s a crime that Democrat policies drive so many people to believe the government can cure all their ills – it can’t and sooner or later, that government that provides, will take away.

Bain – Romney campaign left this for far too long – I don’t care if he had the nomination or not – attack back – Bain saved and created 10,000s of jobs.

This is what needs to be done.

Oh Priscilla, you were referring here to Stoic Patriot, an Obama Voter. My apologies.

Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Not true. I never voted for Obama. I voted for Virgil Goode. I’m sorry you can’t handle the fact that you put up a nominee that social conservatives found revolting and wanted no part of.

But “gifts” is a big part of how democrats win. Why do Jindal and Walker want to lie and about something that is so obviously tru? How stupid do they think people are? Even most democrats know it’s true, even if they don’t say it.

VorDaj on November 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You should watch the segment for yourself before accepting Allahpundit’s hysterical and uninformed pre-assessment of it as reality – Walker and Jindal didn’t come close to “tearing him [Mitt] apart” (I say this with the assumption AP wasn’t being exaggerative for effect, which I realize is a possibility.)

Mitt blaming his loss on “gifts” from 0dumba is overly simplistic and sounds like sour grapes, and makes it appear as though he isn’t a good salesperson, one who shouldn’t be inspiring confidence in anyone.

mixplix on November 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM

To which I would add, how many snowbirds, particularly those in Florida, voted both in the Sunshine State and with an absentee ballot back home?

No welfare for immigrants. Not a citizen, go home. Your reasoning is how we got two Øbama relatives living here on public assistance. This “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” society is not working out for the USA.

ExpressoBold on November 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Once upon a time our immigrants had to have citizens/relatives sponsor them and assure that the newcomers would not be a burden on the taxpayer. Maybe we need to get back to that sense of personal responsibility rather than making the taxpayer the welfare provider for immigrants, legal and illegal.

Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker, the new chair and vice chair of the RGA, will be on Fox News Sunday to continue tearing him apart over his “gifts” comment

But “gifts” is a big part of how democrats win. Why do Jindal and Walker want to lie and about something that is so obviously tru? How stupid do they think people are? Even most democrats know it’s true, even if they don’t say it.

…but the Romney-haters could not overcome their anger at his nomination and stayed home, along with the undecideds who never broke for either candidate. The GOP defeated itself, because it counted on Obama hate cancelling out Romney hate. Didn’t happen…
Priscilla

Priscilla are you there? Were you in Ohio trying to get people to the polls and they said this?

Rumor and Insinnuendo.

Another “rumor” was that republicans stayed home because the Romney’s are Mormons.

It’s all hearsay.

The thing that is known, is that Newt Gingrich and Santorum told republicans in the primary that Mitt Romney did not stand up for average Americans. Santorum Guilty. Newt, even guiltier. They did Obama’s work for him. Obama just had to latch on to that advertising and run with it, after all, Newt said it was true.

The people to blame is the republican party of Ohio, who could not coagulate and get their candidates thru. Why don’t we have Josh Mandel? I expect in truth it is the same reason we don’t have Romney in Ohio. The media was NOT on our side.

Time for R’s to recognize that it is vital to slime the opponent effectively.

Positive is a limited political tool.

Especially when up against a Thug Team like Obama & Co.

If the mooching illegal aliens were not here, there would be no need for any “national security” consideration. Send them back to Kenya and let them apply for a LEGAL visa – if they can show that they would not be a drain on the national resources.

There is NO excuse for that pair of moochers to be in this country as ILLEGAL ALIENS – other than that d’ohbama azz-kissers like you accept it.

Solaratov on November 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM

look, if foreign agents get hold of relatives of obama, they could blackmail him or manipulate the relatives so that they would tell unpleasant things about the president or the US policy. I dont like them to be in welfare, but its peanuts just comparing to one single flight of air force one. Any way, even supporting his deadbeat relatives should be cheap for obama, so I fail to understand why he opens himself for this kind of political attack. something is not right in the story you tell me.
when you see real dictators, they put their deadbeat relatives overseeing millions in jobs they are clearly unqualified for, that is shameful family cronyism. and you do find some political families in DC where the extended family profits millions, maybe billions from some politician government connections.

Shouldn’t we be going after Obama and dems not each other?

Very disappointed in the “attack Mitt” strategy that is going on right now.

gophergirl on November 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

These aholes are jockeying for position for 2016. The GOP are no better than the democrats. Still out there yammering to the media, still doing bad deals and fattening their own wallets.

Unless Palin comes out of the woodwork and sticks with the GOP I’m going federalist. I would suggest everyone else consider it as well.

FlaMurph on November 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Um, I never said that Romney was the problem. I said that Romney haters in the GOP were the problem.

I don’t know if anyone has ever won an election by telling the “swing voters” that they are stupid. So this hysterical “gifts” cleanup by Jindal and the GOP is predictable.

fitzfong on November 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Just got done seeing Walker and Jindal with Chris Wallace. I thought Jindal not only did a good job standing up for the GOP’s basic principles, he did he good job standing up for Mitt himself while still criticizing his dumb comment about “gifts” (as you pointed out, insulting potential supporters usually isn’t the wisest course of action, and Mitt seems to have a tin ear about this.)

The only complaint I have about his appearance is that he unfavorably compared Mourdock with Akin, which I think was unfair to Mourdock (I say that with the presumption Mourdock’s comment was not said from a Calvinist’s POV.)

national security reasons alone justify it.

nathor on November 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You’re more full of crap than a Christmas goose.

Lil barry gives NOTHING to his relatives – not even to his half-brother living on less than $50/month.

If the mooching illegal aliens were not here, there would be no need for any “national security” consideration. Send them back to Kenya and let them apply for a LEGAL visa – if they can show that they would not be a drain on the national resources.

There is NO excuse for that pair of moochers to be in this country as ILLEGAL ALIENS – other than that d’ohbama azz-kissers like you accept it.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

So…you’re not really into taking responsibility for your own decisions, huh?

“The only things one finds in the middle of the road are a yellow stripe and a lot of dead chickens.” — M.T.

You are the one who said that the gays are apparently infiltrating the Catholic Church. I just brought that to the logically conclusion.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

What infected the Catholic Church was libertine liberalism…same as the Post WWII culture.

It’s an old Conservative v Liberal battle within the church & reflected tensions within the culture at large.

The pendulum within the church is going back toward conservatism…Whether this continues will be dependent on the depth and scope of the influence Pope Benedict XVI and his ability to appoint more conservatives. He seems to be winning the doctrinal argument so far.

We live in a libertine secular culture, specializing in balkanization and demographic conquest, until conservatives deal with that with an effective argument it will continue to reflect the decay of the culture.

Hedonism is what it has always been…and Bread & Circuses as a political strategy is an old and effective method.

Gotta go! It’s been a pleasure trading ideas. Back later.

Lew on November 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

likewise! cya!

1988, 2004, 2012 – losing candidate is an inarticulate, out-of touch, Massachusetts elitist.

You are the one who said that the gays are apparently infiltrating the Catholic Church. I just brought that to the logically conclusion.

Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Hardly. It doesn’t require a secret meeting. The Catholic church probably attracted them because it wouldn’t require that they excuse their (from outward appearances) celibacy to people who might otherwise question why they weren’t married. And to the extent that the gay community has sexual predators, it also gives them an easy opportunity to prey upon children.

That doesn’t require secret meetings — just motive and opportunity.

Well.. There is this thing called play on words that sometimes that people use. Bush was in office for another four years, but it sure didn’t feel like a second term. I’m praying that Barry gets a huge helping of that.

Same here. Minus the literal praying of course. =P

Obama’s appeal in 2008 was about two things.. Yes, “Hope and Change.” and there are no red states or blue states. It was an appeal that the nation had big problems and that he wouldn’t play politics to solve them. The 2012 election was about small ball politics… It was about pandering to each group in the D voting base and giving them what they wanted to cobble together 51% of the vote. There wasn’t an appeal to “human rights.” It was an appeal to fear and hate. You’re basically arguing that Santorum would have totally done better as a candidates because he would try to scare up Evangelicals by being for the gays.

In 2008 Obama was about “hope and change,” which was really code for an exit from Iraq which the majority of Americans had tired of. I agree with your disdainful assessment of Obama’s pandering, but that pandering still involved human-rights appeals. Did it involve fear and hate? Absolutely. But these two things are not mutually exclusive.

As for Santorum, I’m arguing that he would’ve done a better job eviscerating Obama’s arguments when he tried stirring that up, could have gotten Obama on the defensive by going after him on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, and would have had more credibility about getting manufacturing jobs to return to America since he would have no history of outsourcing, and comes from a blue-collar background in a purple state.

And I’m saying that Santorum isn’t appealing because of both style and issues. Harping on social issues doesn’t win elections.

Yep.. And Bush fired up his base on gay marriage and moral issues in 2004. — Illinidiva on November 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You just contradicted yourself. Harping on social issues clearly can win elections. Akin and Mourdock lost not because they spoke about social issues, but because the manner in which they did so essentially excused rape. It’s possible to be both pro-life and anti-rape, but the manner in which they spoke about it was immensely stupid.

As for the 2016 candidates, we’ll see what they end up talking about. My bet is that we’ll get a social conservative who wins over the base in the primary and then is given a certain level of trust by the base in the general election so they don’t demand that their issues are constantly at the fore, but which will get mentions and will be used to go on offense with as part of an all-issues engagement strategy.

What I’m saying is to look at the agenda-issues that the homosexual lobby has chosen. It’s a bit unnerving that so much of their agenda deals with kids — people that they don’t create, have no responsibility to, and have no discernible reason to care about more than any other group.

You are the one who said that the gays are apparently infiltrating the Catholic Church. I just brought that to the logically conclusion.

I hate to tell you this, but Bush won a second term. The “term” refers to the duration of your service in a given office. Obama also has won a second term. These correspond directly with the results of the elections. Whether or not you think they have some kind of “mandate” (which is more meaningless press rhetoric than anything) is a different question.

Well.. There is this thing called play on words that sometimes that people use. Bush was in office for another four years, but it sure didn’t feel like a second term. I’m praying that Barry gets a huge helping of that.

Yet there are people who truly believe what Obama was saying. And Obama’s appeal, which although I think is perverse, still appeals to a higher ideal of “human rights,” even though I strongly disagree as to the nature of said rights. On that mark, I think you’re wrong in saying that it failed. He succeeded. What we needed (and still need), is someone who is going to stand up to him and tear him apart regularly when he makes this case.

Obama’s appeal in 2008 was about two things.. Yes, “Hope and Change.” and there are no red states or blue states. It was an appeal that the nation had big problems and that he wouldn’t play politics to solve them. The 2012 election was about small ball politics… It was about pandering to each group in the D voting base and giving them what they wanted to cobble together 51% of the vote. There wasn’t an appeal to “human rights.” It was an appeal to fear and hate. You’re basically arguing that Santorum would have totally done better as a candidates because he would try to scare up Evangelicals by being for the gays.

Don’t get me wrong — when I’m saying that Santorum is appealing, what I’m saying is that he’s a good candidate and can win, but by no means am I saying that he’s the only candidate who can, or even the best candidate of those who can. But he has gotten a raw deal, and his abilities have been underrated.

And I’m saying that Santorum isn’t appealing because of both style and issues. Harping on social issues doesn’t win elections. In fact, it cost the Rs two Senate seats this time around.. legitimate rape. You know what all the 2016 probables don’t talk about.. abortion and gays. Jindal’s main spiel is that he is a competent governor. Ryan’s main spiel is the budget. Rubio’s main spiel is being Latino. As for style, Santorum’s hectoring and nagging is off-putting even when compared to other So Con politicians, like a Huckabee. I think that Chuckles’ schtick has gotten old, but he is much more appealing than Santorum.