Gingrich: The GOP misunderstood the electorate in 2012

posted at 1:06 pm on November 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Via Eliana Johnson at NRO, this clip from The View of Newt Gingrich explaining the Republican losses this month has an oddly confessional quality about it.  Perhaps that’s amplified by the affirmative interjections from the hosts of the show, but it might also be that Gingrich offers his critiques on a show as hostile to Gingrich’s politics as The View, too.  But for Gingrich, that’s a large part of his point — that Republicans, including Mitt Romney, didn’t go to where the voters lived and entertained themselves, and so became out of touch with the direction of the nation:

Eliana also reports on remarks made to a friendlier audience, the “Restoration Weekend” staged by David Horowitz this weekend in West Palm Beach:

Giving a nod to legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, Gingrich said, “When we won in ’94, we followed Wooden’s theory of a full-court press.” He contrasted that strategy to the Republican Party’s targeted focus on swing states and counties this time around, and argued for a more expansive approach. “We need to take the Left on everywhere they exist,” he said. Gingrich’s remarks came Saturday afternoon in an address to the crowd assembled at David Horowitz’s “Restoration Weekend” in West Palm Beach.

Gingrich is critical of Governor Romney’s failure to engage with the media personalities who shape and influence popular culture. He noted disapprovingly that Romney turned down invitations to appear on The Colbert ReportThe View and Nickelodeon’s Kids Pick the President, while President Obama was a guest on all three. The former house speaker appeared on The View with his wife, Callista, last week, but was doggedly critical of the mainstream media as a candidate, slamming CNN’s John King for peddling “trash,” blasting the “elite media,” and lamenting their “gotcha questions.” …

And Gingrich, at 69, said he is willing to learn. He declared of his own predictions for the year’s election, “I was dead wrong.” Indeed, Gingrich predicted we’d see Romney elected with over 300 electoral votes and that Republicans would take the Senate. “All through my career, I believed this was a center right country,” he said. “Now, I believe at best, it’s a centrist country with a dominant Left.”

Gingrich announced that he was building a staff to sift through all of the data from this election to determine what the GOP and conservatives can learn from the loss, and to pitch their message more effectively.  This mission suits Gingrich almost perfectly, especially with his own aspirations for the presidency all but discharged now.  Not everyone’s convinced that Gingrich’s aspirations have been fully discharged, though, as one of the hosts makes clear as the clip ends: “So when you run in 2016 …”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Gingrich makes a good point about how romney did not go far enough into the culture with shows like the colbert report. obama did do those kinds of things, and that’s why, to a lot of people, obama came across as more likeable. because of this, many people believed the crap about romney being a heartless rich snob, and many people think obama is cool and friendly and loving to everyone. romney tried so hard to say over and over that he did care about the middle class, but obama also made points about how he supposedly cares about the middle class. in the debates, they were both repeatedly saying “my plan is the best for the middle class,” but more people trusted obama over romney because they liked him more. that’s my theory.

Sachiko on November 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I may not fully agree with how you phrased it (the part about 0dumba being ‘liked’ more), but I do agree with the gist of what you saying.

Mitt fed into the stereotype many uneducated “feelings” voters have about emotionally distant, unconcerned-with-minorities, rich, white males, and he did not have a clue how to combat that image. Those who minimize the importance of this aspect with many voters, blame them for it, and believe that it would have been a waste of time to try to reach them, are negative and rather ignorant and clueless about how those voters’ minds work.

Last night on O’Reilly, MKH tried to get this across to Bill, who was impervious to the idea that he is guilty of oversimplifying the “Santa” factor.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Pockets of GOP voters stayed home and were ignored. Romney needed to do a better job of reaching them. He didn’t micro target them. This might come as a surprise to some people, but there are large pockets of GOP voters that are generally immigrants from Trinidad, Cubans, Barbadians in swing states that reside in blue counties like Miami Dade.

The reason Romney lost FL (for example) was because he under performed McCain in Miami Dade.
And Cubans (I’m part Cuban part Trinidadian) didn’t vote for Romney for the same reason that working class whites stayed home he didn’t appeal to them.

Most immigrant communities are blue collar. That was Romney’s biggest weakness.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM

mnjg on November 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Agree Perry/Rubio would be solid.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

bw222 on November 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Not disagreeing. Just pointing that out.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 3:22 PM

PastorJon on November 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

He was too nice, his spokeswoman responded to that disgusting Cancer ad by pointing out that the guy’s wife would have been covered under Romneycare in MA.

He stayed off the air all summer, let Obama define him, and never went after Obama’s character, always calling him “a nice man” you can’t win like that.

Especially when Obama and his cronies was calling him everything from felon to murderer.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Some people are stupid.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Might be so, but Romney made certain they stayed HOME stupid instead of getting out voting for Romney stupid.

Romney and you should already know people are stupid, and if you and him do not, that is YOUR FAILURES.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Not at all. Stupid people’s votes can go either way, nothing to do with the candidates. You can do every single thing right and they can still vote the other way. That’s why you can’t appeal to stupid with rational arguments, they aren’t rational. The fact that you think you can, makes one wonder :)…

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Not at all. Stupid people’s votes can go either way, nothing to do with the candidates. You can do every single thing right and they can still vote the other way. That’s why you can’t appeal to stupid with rational arguments, they aren’t rational. The fact that you think you can, makes one wonder :)…

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Ronnie is assuming they were going to vote for Romney, but were just brats instead i am guessing.

You know what it is when people refuse to ever see things through other people’s eyes?

Well, when you are a candidate for President that has progressive views and your voters have conservative views? I call it FAILURE.

Ask yourself where this election might have gone if Romney would have actually campaigned on a PLATFORM of conservative ideas? Like contract with America, like the Tea Party did and then subsequently reneged on. Imagine if Boehner had actually accomplished ONE BIG TICKET ITEM from the Tea Party platform? Just one… Well, keep imaigning, as if next time is likely, we get another “my views are progressive” R for our nominee, you ain’t going to win, even if they put Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters or Barney Frank on the top of their ticket.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Might be so, but Romney made certain they stayed HOME stupid instead of getting out voting for Romney stupid.

Romney and you should already know people are stupid, and if you and him do not, that is YOUR FAILURES.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Maybe we should have run a ham sandwich. That would have appealed to stupid people. Of course then we’d be stuck with the kind of candidate who appeals to stupid people — which I suppose we have now.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM

What’s the point of GOP candidates going on any of these shows? All the questions are going to be from a lefty standpoint, eg, “Why don’t you want young Hispanics to share in the American dream?,” “Why do you want young women to go have back-alley abortions,” etc. etc. Then he would have said something like “that’s going down a black hole,” or “we can’t rely on black magic,” and be pilloried in the press for resorting to racial code. And they wouldn’t be niggardly in their criticism.

Romney was ill-suited to the task, and still I think all of the other candidates, lacking a lovely and admirable Mrs. Romney at their side, would have fared even worse.

bobs1196 on November 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Ronnie is assuming they were going to vote for Romney, but were just brats instead i am guessing.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I’m assuming they’re quite content with obama or too stupid to care. That’s our electorate. We could run a candidate who would be more appealing to the stupid people, but I doubt that would mean a move to the right.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Maybe we should have run a ham sandwich. That would have appealed to stupid people. Of course then we’d be stuck with the kind of candidate who appeals to stupid people — which I suppose we have now.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I thought the only reason they were stupid to you is that they did not vote for Romney.

Can you tell me what other things they are stupid about? Be as detailed as possible, so I understand your position of how we can never ever again win any election because people who did not vote for Romney are not capable of ever voting in the future for a candidate more to their liking, say one that is hmmmm CONSERVATIVE!?!

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I thought the only reason they were stupid to you is that they did not vote for Romney.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I think you have that causation backwards.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

If you believe Newt, who believes Mitt could have won apparently more than Mitt himself, is more of a defeatist than those who believe Mitt couldn’t have won no matter how much he might have improved his outreach to superficial, low-info voters, you have a misguided and Orwellian definition of “defeatism”.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM

You seem to be obsessed with Mitt’s defenders. Perhaps you should pick a fight with one of them if that’s what you are looking for, my comments are directed at Newt alone. He’s full of it here.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I think you have that causation backwards.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You failed to give any idea of how stupid they are. I am sure you have stats. Get those out there so we can start hammering away at them.

So, smart people vote for Romney, stupid people is everyone else. How exactly did you get yourself around to voting for Romney?

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I guess what it comes down to for me, is that politics is a lot like boxing, with the public the judges on who is the winner they want to support. The media is supposed to be a neutral referee, and the judges (the people) are supposed to understand what they are watching.

Thanks to a biased media and a progressive educated public, we will never have a fair fight. If we fight as “nice” as can be, we get clobbered by them. If we match them blow for blow, the public will get bored and won’t vote or really evaluate it. If we fight harder and more aggressively the referee will tell the public we are evil.

Then on top of all of that, despite all that we’re fighting, I believe that if you take away all the fraudulent votes, Romney is president-elect. It was just too close to beat the margin of fraud.

PastorJon on November 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Ask yourself where this election might have gone if Romney would have actually campaigned on a PLATFORM of conservative ideas? Like contract with America, like the Tea Party did and then subsequently reneged on. Imagine if Boehner had actually accomplished ONE BIG TICKET ITEM from the Tea Party platform? Just one… Well, keep imaigning, as if next time is likely, we get another “my views are progressive” R for our nominee, you ain’t going to win, even if they put Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters or Barney Frank on the top of their ticket.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

You can’t see the world through the stupid/irrational people eyes without being one yourself, that was my point, and that’s why I said that the fact you think you can, makes one wonder. As for your counterfactual question, he would have probably lost by the same or even larger margins. The ones that you call ‘moderates’ would have stayed home, they are equally numerous as the cons that you maintain stayed home because he wasn’t conservative enough. It goes both ways, you know. And then you would be here explaining to us how terrible and what traitors these moderates are/were for staying home and not voting for the most con candidate :)…a Rep candidate can only win if he appeals equally to the cons and moderates, it’s hard, not impossible but hard, Romney was close, but Obama was hard to beat regardless who was our nominee, nothing to do with his record, btw, but with the stupid/irrational people whose eyes you seem so eager to want to see the world through…be my guest, knock yourself out..

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Hey you stupid republican pundits, politicians and advisors, you Karl Rove and Gingrich types – Romney lost because he is a GOOD, HONEST and CHARITABLE person; he has values and morals. He lost because he didn’t pander to ANY group or offer anything ‘free’. I’m so tired of this after-the-fact, these so-called know-it-alls who criticize a politician who lost. Romney did nothing wrong – it’s just that Americans today want whomever is going to GIVE them stuff and tell the most lies!

Today’s population expects instant gratification, no pain in ANY endeavor; the work ethic has been lost; too many people expect something for nothing, our morals and values have been flushed down the drain. What used to be good is now bad, and what used to be bad is now good.

Today’s politicians (ALL sides) are only out for themselves to get or keep their cushy, well-paid jobs so they’ll promise the world and lie and demonize the other guy to get/keep that cushy job and the stupid people today are too STUPID to realize that. That’s what happened to Gov. Romney; he was just too good a guy to come down to the democrat’s level of lying, smearing, pandering and promising false goods and hopes, and THAT is why he lost. He was too polite to be mean or obnoxious; he’s just a DECENT man who couldn’t get down in the dirt and defend himself against the lies and absolute cruel trash that was told about him. Yeah, yeah he said that thing about the 47% – but it’s true and this election PROVED that! Oops, I forgot – people don’t vote on the TRUTH!

You republican politicians might as well become democrats! And, you so-called ‘christians’ (small “c” intended) who voted for the anti-God democrat platform, you do know that you’ll be considered an accessory to the ‘crimes’ (those things which God considers abominations), even though you don’t support or believe in abortions/gay marriage, YOU helped elect the person who DOES.

Oh, and Romney lost because he’s a Mormon – oh, the horror of it all! Obama goes to a ‘church’ for 20 years and listens to black theology and hate speech against whites and Jews and America herself (the pastor asking God to damn America), and Obama’s wife was never proud of America until her ‘baby daddy’ won the presidency, but hey that’s cool! That’s all that matters, being cool – right?

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Imagine if Boehner had actually accomplished ONE BIG TICKET ITEM from the Tea Party platform? Just one… Well, keep imaigning, as if next time is likely, we get another “my views are progressive” R for our nominee, you ain’t going to win, even if they put Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters or Barney Frank on the top of their ticket.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

How was Boehner, who I think is a wimp but let’s assume he showed backbone, going to accomplish anything with Harry Reid blocking ANYTHING from coming to the floor that comes from the House that he doesn’t like? The House can overcome a presidential veto, but it can’t do anything about a Senate run by a tyrant. The House could have put out a miracle bill that would save the world but Harry Reid would have crushed it, demagoged it and stopped it.

The House accomplished all that it could. It forced the Obama agenda into Executive Orders and agency level regulations, things a new president could have overturned without dingy Harry’s help. But they paid a political price as they became viewed as do nothing.

And thanks to Akin, Mourdock and coat tails, we didn’t get the Senate back.

PastorJon on November 20, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Mitt fed into the stereotype many uneducated “feelings” voters have about emotionally distant, unconcerned-with-minorities, rich, white males, and he did not have a clue how to combat that image. Those who minimize the importance of this aspect with many voters, blame them for it, and believe that it would have been a waste of time to try to reach them, are negative and rather ignorant and clueless about how those voters’ minds work.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM

This whole election can be summed up as Democrats cast the GOP with negative stereotypes, and then the GOP fed into those stereotypes. The war on women, followed by comments from Akin and Murdock. GOP is the party of the rich, followed by the 47% comments.

Rush was railing against the assertion that we need to re-write the GOP’s message. But he doesn’t see any middle ground between being an iconoclast and being “Democrat lite”. There IS a strong middle ground – and that’s espousing conservative principals in a smart way that appeals to your audience. That doesn’t mean pandering, it just means being aware that people like different things, and emphasizing the parts of your message that your audience likes most.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2012 at 3:53 PM

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Lots of truth in this post

blatantblue on November 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Hey you stupid republican pundits, politicians and advisors, you Karl Rove and Gingrich types – Romney lost because he is a GOOD, HONEST and CHARITABLE person; he has values and morals. He lost because he didn’t pander to ANY group or offer anything ‘free’

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Wrong. He could’ve easily won this election without pandering. 1)Start advertising earlier, before Obama has caricaturized him.
2)Test your GOTV software before election day.
3)Compile information about voters and their preferences, and then contact those voters. Record what you learn from those contacts.
4)Meet with GOP candidates and reinforce the need to stay on-message, and teach them how to avoid uncomfortable questions.
5)Don’t assume the other side isn’t going to show up on election day. Take polls using sober assumptions, and analyze poll results carefully.
6)Don’t say things that seem to write off half the country when you speak, even if it’s to a small audience. People carry video cameras now.
7)Reach out to every potential voter.

Not all of this was Romney’s responsibility to fix. But he and/or the RNC could’ve done better in all of these areas.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So, smart people vote for Romney, stupid people is everyone else. How exactly did you get yourself around to voting for Romney?

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:43 PM

You feel better now that you’ve reduced this to personal attacks? I don’t. Bye.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM

What’s the point of GOP candidates going on any of these shows? All the questions are going to be from a lefty standpoint, eg, “Why don’t you want young Hispanics to share in the American dream?,” “Why do you want young women to go have back-alley abortions,” etc. etc. Then he would have said something like “that’s going down a black hole,” or “we can’t rely on black magic,” and be pilloried in the press for resorting to racial code. And they wouldn’t be niggardly in their criticism.

Romney was ill-suited to the task, and still I think all of the other candidates, lacking a lovely and admirable Mrs. Romney at their side, would have fared even worse.

bobs1196 on November 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

The point is that for about 70% of the country, that dont follow politics, you need to make a favorable impression and come off as likeable.

And if Marco Rubio, or even Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal, cant twist a question like that around, tehy have no business even thinking about being president.

You cant win a debate on substance if you are not a household name, and you dont become a household name without being interesting to the media. The media might disagree with Rubio’s politics, but if he is visible and makes himself available, they will swarm to him because he has as good a chance to be the next president as any other person in America.

milcus on November 20, 2012 at 4:01 PM

You seem to be obsessed with Mitt’s defenders. Perhaps you should pick a fight with one of them if that’s what you are looking for, my comments are directed at Newt alone. He’s full of it here.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I readily admit I have a problem with those who would focus on Newt as a bigger defeatist here rather than on Romney and his supporters who would blame ‘Santa and his gifts’ for his loss.

Your inference that I “seem to be obsessed with Mitt’s defenders”, and statement that I “should pick a fight with one of them…”, doesn’t say anything interesting about my psychology. Should I expect you to understand what I mean by that? :)

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 4:03 PM

You feel better now that you’ve reduced this to personal attacks? I don’t. Bye.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Calling people stupid is a personal attack. Just because many of them are not here on this page reading your rants about them does not negate that attack.

You are the one making the argument they are stupid, you cannot back that argument up and now want to run and hide behind mommies apron?

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Today’s population expects instant gratification, no pain in ANY endeavor; the work ethic has been lost; too many people expect something for nothing, our morals and values have been flushed down the drain. What used to be good is now bad, and what used to be bad is now good.

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I agree with a lot of what you said, but go talk to the young men and women at Fort Hood, Fort Pickett, or any number of other installations about this paragraph.

If you’re right, then there are no more conservatives, and we’ve lost. But the truth is that more half of the country is conservative, and most Americans are still willing to work for a better future. We ignored large groups of people with conservative values because they didn’t fit our demographics. How much work did Romney do reaching out to black pastors? Some of them were clearly unhappy with Obama’s gay marriage stance. How much did we really do to win over Catholics? What did Romney do to win Hispanic votes? Texas and Arizona show that you don’t have to offer amnesty to appeal to Hispanics.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Notwithstanding all of the RNC/Hangerons etal excuses.

What Ted Curz said.

How the conservative blogs and the RNC etal handle Ted Cruz is going to be the tell of the deal the next four years.

The back shooting will be a real leson for U.S. all.

Ted can take it.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Fortunately for me, I will do fine with Obama as president unless he starts a shooting war against conservatives.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM

..I was requesting an explanation to to the bolded part of your remarks above.

Again, serious question. Not catty.

The War Planner on November 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Romney nor the RNC did what it took to get out the vote.

We have the votes it is just a matter of getting all of our side to the polls.

McCain and now Romeny has proved up one type of Republican that does not work.

We must use results management.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM

..I was requesting an explanation to to the bolded part of your remarks above.

Again, serious question. Not catty.

The War Planner on November 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I answered. I will work hard. I will sell grapefruit on the street corner if I have to in order to feed my family. We will be fine.

As a last resort, my skills are equally valuable in Canada, Australia, and other countries. I can temporarily move out of the nation to get a job, just like I move from state to state to state to state as required to get a job. Me and my family will do fine. As for the moochers, I hope it all burns sooner rather than later for them.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM

This whole election can be summed up as Democrats cast the GOP with negative stereotypes, and then the GOP fed into those stereotypes. The war on women, followed by comments from Akin and Murdock. GOP is the party of the rich, followed by the 47% comments.

Rush was railing against the assertion that we need to re-write the GOP’s message. But he doesn’t see any middle ground between being an iconoclast and being “Democrat lite”. There IS a strong middle ground – and that’s espousing conservative principals in a smart way that appeals to your audience. That doesn’t mean pandering, it just means being aware that people like different things, and emphasizing the parts of your message that your audience likes most.

hawksruleva on November 20, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I agree.

Mitt did not do a great job selling himself as a concerned, caring guy, and it is silly and unwise to believe that he couldn’t have done a reasonable amount more to attract to those “feelings” voters who do primarily respond to that kind of approach.

It’s true that it would not have been easy for Mitt himself to do this, as he struggles with touchy-feely-ness and projecting warmth, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have done a noticably better job at it. If many of these “feelings” voters could have sensed that he was at least sincerely trying to reach them, it would have benefitted him – he didn’t even do that, to his detriment.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The moochers/dole check ones are already shooting and robbing one another when times are good. When the commie Democrat screwed up time comes they will not be able to afford the $10.00 a gal. gas to come out into worker 5 day a week job areas and rob and steal, so Obama and the commie Democrats are in fact setting their base in life and death conditions aginst one another in the inner cities soon.

example Chicago/Detroit

evil

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Newt is just smart enough to lie to himself well enough that he ends up beliving the lies.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM

25% liberal

25% very conservative

10% moderate

10% independent

30% hard working truth seeking real Americans.

So, if the right does right,, 60% of the vote and the only thing needed is to get out the votes on election days.

See 2010 congressional elections.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM

See Ted Curz and real Americans in Ted’s election to the Senate.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Gingrich announced that he was building a staff to sift through all of the data from this election to determine what the GOP and conservatives can learn from the loss, and to pitch their message more effectively. This mission suits Gingrich almost perfectly, especially with his own aspirations for the presidency all but discharged now.

I agree Newt would be perfect at it..:)

Dire Straits on November 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I agree with a lot of what you said, but go talk to the young men and women at Fort Hood, Fort Pickett, or any number of other installations about this paragraph.

If you’re right, then there are no more conservatives, and we’ve lost. But the truth is that more half of the country is conservative, and most Americans are still willing to work for a better future. We ignored large groups of people with conservative values because they didn’t fit our demographics. How much work did Romney do reaching out to black pastors? Some of them were clearly unhappy with Obama’s gay marriage stance. How much did we really do to win over Catholics? What did Romney do to win Hispanic votes? Texas and Arizona show that you don’t have to offer amnesty to appeal to Hispanics.
****

Of course, I don’t mean to suggest that everyone fits the narrative I wrote, but the great majority of Americans apparently DO expect instant gratification, and something for nothing; this election proved it. What’s sad, are the seniors in this country; I think a lot of them are going against their values and beliefs and support someone like Obama because they’re afraid of losing their SS benefits because they don’t want to try new ideas that Romney proposed in order to save SS.

Uh, I have a niece who has just been deployed to Afghanistan (sp?), so I think I have pretty good feeling for our military.

As far as the black pastors and their congregation, instead of voting AGAINST “one of their own”, I assume most either DID vote for Obama or stayed home because they didn’t want to go ‘against’ their brother (sorry, if it sounds racists but I think blacks ARE racist; again, not all – but most, the same as whites, hispanics, etc.). Romney spoke before the NAACP (and got booed); Obama didn’t – ‘course he didn’t “have” to. Romney’s campaign events and speeches were open to all; blacks could have come to listen to him, IF THEY WANTED TO; apparently, they didn’t want to.

“Win over the Catholic” vote??? I thought they were ‘christians’; do they listen to mortals (human beings), or listen to Jesus Christ and His teachings when it comes to morality and/or voting? A Christian, I would think, would vote according to what he/she feels would God would think is right. I’m a Christian and I vote that way (in what I think God would approve or disapprove of). That’s the way I am; others are different, they believe differently than me.

And as far as the Hispanics? If we have to grant amnesty to law breakers who REFUSE to learn the English language, who learn REAL quick how to get foodstamps and other benefits, who have tons of kids – in and out of wedlock – to add to our already over-populated and troubled economy, then I’m through worrying about this country and America’s youth (the offspring of AMERICAN CITIZENS), who will be competing for high-paid positions with illegal/turned legal Hispanic youth who have been educated in OUR country for free. Guess who will get those jobs? It won’t be natural born American youth who only know one language – English; it’ll be the equally educated Hispanic youth who know TWO languages – English AND Spanish. If today’s youth and their parents don’t care, then I definitely don’t care!

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

And if Marco Rubio, or even Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal, cant twist a question like that around, tehy have no business even thinking about being president.

I don’t think a Republican can win on any of these shows. If it’s Rubio, then the question will be “But polls show only X% of Hispanics are thinking of voting for you. Don’t you think the GOP message is incompatible with Hispanic aspirations?” And so on.

Maybe Nickelodeon would have been safe, I don’t know. But Colbert, Stewart, Letterman, the View…the best you can do is get out of there with some viewers saying “well, he doesn’t seem as bad as the other Republicans.”

bobs1196 on November 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Obama won because he was seen as less a war monger than Romney.

(Even though Obama is still a war monger)

Women and young people don’t LIKE WAR.

And neither do I, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson.

This issue crosses race or culture.

The GOP will not win again until it embraces non-intervention.

“LESS WAR AND INTERVENTION”.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Drinking game: Whenever he says transformational or fundamental, or any variation.

Akzed on November 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

I don’t think a Republican can win on any of these shows. If it’s Rubio, then the question will be “But polls show only X% of Hispanics are thinking of voting for you. Don’t you think the GOP message is incompatible with Hispanic aspirations?” And so on.

Maybe Nickelodeon would have been safe, I don’t know. But Colbert, Stewart, Letterman, the View…the best you can do is get out of there with some viewers saying “well, he doesn’t seem as bad as the other Republicans.”

bobs1196 on November 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

The answer is simple.

“No, ______, I do not think the Republican message is incompatible to hispanics. Hispanics, above all else, want freedom and opportunity, like all other Americans. Hispanics come here for the chance to build a brighter future for themselves and their children. They want the government to live within its meanings as most hispanics do. They want the government to get out of the way and allow private businesses to create jobs that will lead to better opportunities for hispanics and most importantly, their children. ________, if we can get that message out to hispanics, and make no mistake Republicans have to do a better job reaching out to hispanics, we can, and will be, competitive with the hispanic community.”

This isn’t brain surgery. Dont say something stupid, sound reasonable, and come off as likable, and Marco Rubio will be president in 50 months.

milcus on November 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

If, the GOP wants to win again, then they should visit as many middle schools as possible and learn the art of cutdown. Translation, make your opponent look foolish. This is exactly what happened to Mitt. The GOP will have to move at least to the center on social issues, stop threatening to deport Grandma and be able to talk economics that the common folks can understand with out this, there is no chance. Please listen, I am tired of wasting my vote.

DDay on November 20, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I agree Newt would be perfect at it..:)

Dire Straits on November 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Me too!

The ‘Santa and his gifts cost Mitt the election’ group, who remind me of the pessimistic Jonah in the OT when he didn’t trust God about Ninevah, would do well for themselves to go study up about communications, and NLP, in order to better understand how to connect with individuals on the levels they primarily respond to – so many GOPers act like if you can’t reach someone immediately with reason, they are unreachable, which is completely preposterous and naive.

Many of the “47%” aren’t mooching, hardcore socialist idealogues, but only scared and/or unthinking people, who are teachable/persuadable when approached correctly.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I think you have that causation backwards.

Ronnie on November 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You failed to give any idea of how stupid they are. I am sure you have stats. Get those out there so we can start hammering away at them.

So, smart people vote for Romney, stupid people is everyone else.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 3:43 PM

There are enough stupid people to tilt the election towas Obama, this is what he was trying to say, so stop pretending you don’t get it, unless you really are one of them and hou really don’t get it. Ever seen Jersey Shore and many other shows in that intellectual tradition :) (I wasn’t old enough to watch them and not living in this country at the time, but I heard Jerry Springer show was a good showcase of that kind of stupid too), so yeah, that’s what we are talking about and are up against…does thissatisfy your definitionsl and exemplification needs? :) low info, with no desire of informing themselves, easily swayed by shiny objects, immature, incapable of thinking for themselves, no critical faculties (or not enabled anyways), indolent, complacent, minimum effort, like freebies, entitled, so yeah, knock yourself out, hammer away at them as you please :)…and btw, selling grapefruits on the street corner is not anybody I know idea of ‘doing fine’, the stupid hordes can sell grapefruits too, doesn’t require any skills, so, you’d have some competition there…

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

“LESS WAR AND INTERVENTION”.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I can support this, but not if it drifts into Ron Paul’s stubborn isolationism. I want a strong military with a massive Navy to patrol the seas and keep global trade routes open, but otherwise I am fully prepared to accept a non-interventionist message unless it involves one of our allies directly (read: NOT French oil interests in Libya). It’s horrible that the Taliban throws acid in the faces of girls who dare to educate themselves, but if a Republican were to intervene on their behalf the Democrats would label him a women hater because he doesn’t support abortion on demand and subsidized contraception. The left doesn’t care about those girls in Afghanistan and apparently neither do the American people.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Towards that is…

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 5:10 PM

You are right, I should have split the two.
5% of the commenters up until the open registration were Romney pushers, they then became about 35%. After about 5 weeks of this, many people stopped commenting, leaving the Romney supporters pushing 50% of the population, with Hot Air big wigs pushing it over the top with their destroy everyone else posts, but always spare Romney.

Then after the nomination was done, it became a house of filth filled with predominantly support Romney or you are a F&CKING TRAITOR THAT SHOULD BE SLAIN WHERE YOU STAND area in the neighborhood of 75%.

That better for you?

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You mean the adults who actually wanted to do the right thing AFTER the primary are bad people?

You know, it’s funny that the only people who are acting this butthurt are Palinistas.

kim roy on November 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Oh, give me a f-ing break. Believing that Romney was yet another GOP squish tailor-made to get his ass handed to him by a committed left-wing ideologue die NOT equal “butthurt Palinista”. Speaking of which, it was SOP around here (and still is, incredibly) that anyone who did not confess with their mouth that Romney was going to win in a landslide was a dirty filthy commie O-bot bastard who simultaneously was worshiping (if not fantasizing about humping) and that such people should have the good grace to politely die in a fire. It wasn’t JUST “welllll I have to grudgingly accept the Mittness reality here…”

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You are right, I should have split the two.
5% of the commenters up until the open registration were Romney pushers, they then became about 35%. After about 5 weeks of this, many people stopped commenting, leaving the Romney supporters pushing 50% of the population, with Hot Air big wigs pushing it over the top with their destroy everyone else posts, but always spare Romney.

Then after the nomination was done, it became a house of filth filled with predominantly support Romney or you are a F&CKING TRAITOR THAT SHOULD BE SLAIN WHERE YOU STAND area in the neighborhood of 75%.

That better for you?

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You mean the adults who actually wanted to do the right thing AFTER the primary are bad people?

You know, it’s funny that the only people who are acting this butthurt are Palinistas.

kim roy on November 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Oh, give me a f-ing break. Believing that Romney was yet another GOP squish tailor-made to get his ass handed to him by a committed left-wing ideologue die NOT equal “butthurt Palinista”. Speaking of which, it was SOP around here (and still is, incredibly) that anyone who did not confess with their mouth that Romney was going to win in a landslide was a dirty filthy commie O-bot bastard who simultaneously was worshiping (if not fantasizing about humping) SARAH!!!!!!!!! and that such people should have the good grace to politely die in a fire. It wasn’t JUST “welllll I have to grudgingly accept the Mittness reality here…”

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Come on… I did not say that anyone who makes less than $ 50,000 is among the parasite class.
mnjg on November 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

You keep using that term. Who are you referring to? (Sincere question.)

cam2 on November 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I can support this, but not if it drifts into Ron Paul’s stubborn isolationism. I want a strong military with a massive Navy to patrol the seas and keep global trade routes open, but otherwise I am fully prepared to accept a non-interventionist message unless it involves one of our allies directly (read: NOT French oil interests in Libya). It’s horrible that the Taliban throws acid in the faces of girls who dare to educate themselves, but if a Republican were to intervene on their behalf the Democrats would label him a women hater because he doesn’t support abortion on demand and subsidized contraception. The left doesn’t care about those girls in Afghanistan and apparently neither do the American people.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If you want a massive Navy to keep trade routes open, then you cannot have a minimal government with low taxes. This is the current problem with the GOP message – they say they want less government and spending and lower taxes, and yet they want to police the world. Although your stance is more in line with Rand Paul and is at least a better move toward less intervention.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

He didn’t micro target them. This might come as a surprise to some people, but there are large pockets of GOP voters that are generally immigrants from Trinidad, Cubans, Barbadians in swing states that reside in blue counties like Miami Dade.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM

No way. The GOP doesn’t do identity politics. That’s for the Left. If they want liberty and freedom, they’re welcome to join. If what they want are micro targeted appeals to their “identity” (read racist pandering) they can vote Democrat.

sauldalinsky on November 20, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Come on… I did not say that anyone who makes less than $ 50,000 is among the parasite class.
mnjg on November 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

You keep using that term. Who are you referring to? (Sincere question.)

cam2 on November 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I somehow get the feeling that a lot of these Romney supporters with the “parasite 47%” remarks no doubt wait around in February for their tax refunds…without any sense of irony.

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

But there were enough smart voters in 2004 and 2010.

I know there are stupid people, but some how other Republican candidates got them to the voting booth and won.

I hate all those shows. I am more of a scifi/fantasy sort of person. But I know the people you are talking about, but they still voted in large enough numbers before, and RECENTLY to get Republicans put into office.

So, is it stupid people, or party of stupid that caused the failure to win this time?

Looking at the numbers, it looks more like party of stupid won the day in defeating itself rather than stupid people.

That is what I am getting at. By the way, blaming the stupid people who are not going smarten up on their own gets you exactly nothing, and likely will cost you. So, who is stupid here?

Consider the democratic vote in this nation as a free market. You have the Candy Shop Democrat Company, the Meat and Potatoes Republican Company, a few specialty places all vying for the electorate. But the thing is that the electorate can stay home and cook their own meals if they decide that is what the want. The Republican candidate for office should not worry about the Meat and Potatoes loving crowd, they will be showing up, or at least they should be. But this go round, I think what happened was that the Republican Company took all the Meat and Potatoes and stuffed and coated it with candy, making the Meat and Potato lovers no longer hungry for what was being offered. It did not reach out to the stay at home people and offer them a try it out menu. And the candy coated Meat and Potatoes did not really appeal so much to the Candy Shop lovers who like theirs pure.

So, The republicans who normally vote Republican are stupid?
The normally stay at home people are stupid?
Or is the Meat and Potato company that changed the menu to something unappealing to everyone stupid?

I vote the Republican party has become their lefty namesake, the party of STUPID. It cannot even appeal to its own base.

LET IT BURN

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 5:21 PM

the stupid hordes can sell grapefruits too, doesn’t require any skills, so, you’d have some competition there…

jimver on November 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Difference being that they are lazy and will die waiting for their government check to arrive.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 5:24 PM

milcus on November 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I don’t mean to belittle you, but I honestly don’t think that message has much meaning for a great mass of the American public, Hispanic or non-Hispanic, who have a much harder and more cynical view of the American dream than you do.

The number one thing I heard on the election from people who are relatively apolitical was that Romney doesn’t pay enough taxes and doesn’t want rich people to pay taxes.

bobs1196 on November 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM

He noted disapprovingly that Romney turned down invitations to appear on The Colbert Report, The View and Nickelodeon’s Kids Pick the President, while President Obama was a guest on all three.

Two reactions:

1) Gingrich is part of the problem. Gingrich painted Romney as a rich, tax-cheating, factory-closing villain months before Obama did. Gingrich is also the one who, in Congress, was painted as a huge villain and had to resign from Congress in disgrace. Do we really need to take Gingrich’s counsel about media issues?

2) Romney would have gotten clobbered on these shows. Romney is a stiff, wooden guy who doesn’t relate well to regular people and who comes off like he was pulled out of 1950s Central Casting. Putting him in laid-back environments like The View or The Daily Show would simply highlight how unfunny he is. And if he started to do well in his appearances, the hosts would pressure him to try and get him to trip up. My point being, while in theory going on these types of shows is a positive for candidates, it wasn’t for Romney.

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Hey you stupid republican pundits, politicians and advisors, you Karl Rove and Gingrich types – Romney lost because he is a GOOD, HONEST and CHARITABLE person; he has values and morals.

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Another communist on HA?

All of your points are nothing but badly researched talking points. Romney lost precisely due to his convictions and well proven record of governing as a COMMUNIST LITE. Everything from raising taxes, GREATLY raising taxes to be exact, to his love of abortions for the underaged (he persuaded underaged to seek court approval if their parents objected), anti-gun laws, etc, etc, etc. All on record, including his proud proclamation that he is a “progressive”.

All of this was discussed in detail during and post GOP primaries. Ad naseum. You were obviously asleep then and obviously asleep now.

The likes of him and other communist lite candidates should run against their own ilk, they do not belong in GOP running as “conservative” candidates. Some people can be fooled some of the time…

riddick on November 20, 2012 at 5:46 PM

1) Gingrich is part of the problem. Gingrich painted Romney as a rich, tax-cheating, factory-closing villain months before Obama did. Gingrich is also the one who, in Congress, was painted as a huge villain and had to resign from Congress in disgrace. Do we really need to take Gingrich’s counsel about media issues?

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Another LIE and another IDIOT.

So easy to spot.

riddick on November 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Time to face the facts. The USA has become an American Idol, dumb ass society dependent on someone else. Our youth are worthless zombies addicted to texting, computer games and facebook. We are fast becoming a decadent has been. I don’t see much worth saving.

they lie on November 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Pretty good stuff right there.

Midas on November 20, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Another LIE and another IDIOT.

So easy to spot.

riddick on November 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I’m sorry. This may be a function of me being an “IDIOT,” but did I miss the whole episode where Gingrich repeatedly attacked Romney for Bain Capital-related issues and was forced to apologize? And, since Gingrich is supposedly Mr. Conservative, perhaps we can talk about Gingrich’s penchant for sitting on couches with Nancy Pelosi and preaching against global warming, and his public rebuke of Paul Ryan’s budget for being right wing social engineering (for which he was forced to apologize)?

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

If you want a massive Navy to keep trade routes open, then you cannot have a minimal government with low taxes. This is the current problem with the GOP message – they say they want less government and spending and lower taxes, and yet they want to police the world. Although your stance is more in line with Rand Paul and is at least a better move toward less intervention.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Our bloated government is the way it is because of soaring entitlement costs, not the Navy. The CBO reports have made this abundantly clear.

If we don’t have our Navy patrolling the seas and keeping trade routes open, some third world civil war could screw up the global economy and hurt us at home economically (like Egypt with the Suez Canal). You want to keep taxes low? Then protect the economy so it can produce the needed revenue.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I somehow get the feeling that a lot of these Romney supporters with the “parasite 47%” remarks no doubt wait around in February for their tax refunds…without any sense of irony.

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I see no irony in someone who’s waiting at the mailbox for a government check that is a refund of their own money taking issue with someone who’s waiting at the mailbox for a government check that is entirely someone else’s money.

Midas on November 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

You mean the adults who actually wanted to do the right thing AFTER the primary are bad people?

You know, it’s funny that the only people who are acting this butthurt are Palinistas.

kim roy on November 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Spot on..You just need to add the Ronulans..:)

Dire Straits on November 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If you want a massive Navy to keep trade routes open, then you cannot have a minimal government with low taxes. This is the current problem with the GOP message – they say they want less government and spending and lower taxes, and yet they want to police the world. Although your stance is more in line with Rand Paul and is at least a better move toward less intervention.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Wow, look – it must be ‘Feeble Strawman Argument Day’ on HA.

Midas on November 20, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Our bloated government is the way it is because of soaring entitlement costs, not the Navy. The CBO reports have made this abundantly clear.
***
Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

In this most recent budget year (ending Sept. 2012), the top three budget categories (in descending order) were: $778 billion on Social Security, $716 billion on Defense, and $579 billion on Income Security. “Income Security” includes unemployment, disability, and the 87 programs we normally think of as welfare. So I agree with you that welfare costs are the biggest contributor, but Defense has a pretty big seat at the the federal trough as well.

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Wow, look – it must be ‘Feeble Strawman Argument Day’ on HA.

Midas on November 20, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Yes and no. It was pretty odd to hear Romney say he was going to cut taxes and at the same time grow 12 million jobs, balance the budget, and significantly increase the budget for defense and Medicare.

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 6:07 PM

riddick on November 20, 2012
***

riddick, I’m hardly a communist – lol! So, Mitt Romney changed his mind; in my eyes, he finally saw the light – he ‘converted’, he ‘repented’ of his past beliefs, and I took his word for it, that’s all any of us can do. Besides, it wouldn’t have mattered if were anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control his whole life; he STILL WOULD HAVE NOT WON!

The guy offering the most ‘freebies’ and who can demonize the other candidate better, won. And, the fact that all the t.v. news stations, newspapers and internet news sites were in Obama’s back pocket, helping spread the smear about how awful and greedy Romney was didn’t help. Plus, ALL THE COMEDY SHOW HOSTS out-and-out favored Obama and ridiculed Romney. How in the world could Romney have had a chance? Even if he did appear on their shows, they would somehow make him look out of touch, old-fashioned, too “square”, too wealthy, blah, blah, blah.

And, sorry, but I follow my own ‘talking points’; I have a brain of my own and don’t feel the NEED to listen to some news commentator or comedy show hosts in order to influence my thinking.

brendy on November 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM

In this most recent budget year (ending Sept. 2012), the top three budget categories (in descending order) were: $778 billion on Social Security, $716 billion on Defense, and $579 billion on Income Security. “Income Security” includes unemployment, disability, and the 87 programs we normally think of as welfare. So I agree with you that welfare costs are the biggest contributor, but Defense has a pretty big seat at the the federal trough as well.

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Have you accounted for the trillions in unpaid liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone? Defense doesn’t compare.

Defense is one of the few government functions actually required by our Constitution. I have no problem with defense spending reform, we’re certainly getting screwed by many contractors, but as a nation we learned long ago with the first two battles at Tripoli Harbor during the first Barbary War. So as long as we have a national defense which can dominate the seas and fight a two front war then I will be content.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM

but as a nation we learned long ago with the first two battles at Tripoli Harbor during the first Barbary War the importance of a large, strong Navy.

I forgot to finish the sentence above

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Have you accounted for the trillions in unpaid liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone? Defense doesn’t compare.

***
Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Oh no. Future entitlement costs will swallow the budget whole. As it stands today, we’re already paying $220+ billion a year just to pay interest on our $16 trillion in debt. Imagine if interest rates go up and we pile on trillions after trillions more!

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Defense is one of the few government functions actually required by our Constitution. I have no problem with defense spending reform, we’re certainly getting screwed by many contractors, but as a nation we learned long ago with the first two battles at Tripoli Harbor during the first Barbary War. So as long as we have a national defense which can dominate the seas and fight a two front war then I will be content.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I think closer to Authorized is the word you meant. You seem to get it.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Oh no. Future entitlement costs will swallow the budget whole. As it stands today, we’re already paying $220+ billion a year just to pay interest on our $16 trillion in debt. Imagine if interest rates go up and we pile on trillions after trillions more!

Outlander on November 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Do not have to imagine, I did the calculations, by 2050, when my daughter is near 40 years old, in the prime of her earning years, the national debt will be north of 100 trillion dollars if the ONLY deficit spending we have between now and then is interest on the debt.

astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 6:31 PM

All of these Repubics are long past their “Sell By” dates. They need to shut up and go home.

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:36 PM

2016 Winning gop candidate profile

Transgender

Had abortion in previous gender as a female

Worked for planned parenthood while attending college

Went to Columbia and Harvard

Has transcripts closed because the grades were really bad

Made friends with rich clientele as a hooker making money par-time to pay for birth control because she couldn’t afford the $9 a month.

Moved to San Fransisco after college

Registered as a Democrat until first job as State Senator

Advocated taking over the gop in the 90′s

Wrote column called “Radical republicanism” in San Fran paper

Appeared in several sitcoms in Hollywood in her/his 20′s

1/2 black 1/2 hispanic father

Single white mother (with native American father and Asian mother) that lived in government housing and went to college on gov’t funds

Did I miss anything?

PappyD61 on November 20, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Aw, look at those vile progs pretending to be nice to Newt so he can trash Romney (how quickly he forgets what the MSM did to him when he was Speaker).

And look at that fat egomaniac falling for it.

Oh, and looks like morons on here are falling for it too.

Dark Star on November 20, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Our bloated government is the way it is because of soaring entitlement costs, not the Navy. The CBO reports have made this abundantly clear.

If we don’t have our Navy patrolling the seas and keeping trade routes open, some third world civil war could screw up the global economy and hurt us at home economically (like Egypt with the Suez Canal). You want to keep taxes low? Then protect the economy so it can produce the needed revenue.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Obviously entitlement costs are enormous, which is why I’m libertarian and against them. But the same goes for policing the world. The fear mongering relating to the Suez Canal is rather comical when you consider that it’s our continually damaging anti-Iran position which is actually what’s putting the canal into danger. That’s to say, if we would have went for a more neutral relationship with Israel and Iran then we could engage in dialogue and talk, rather than initiate sanctions which are bringing our two countries closer and closer to war. My point here is – our aggressive stance toward Iran is what pushes us closer to war and what drives up the cost of energy/oil. Good example of this is the price of oil before and after the Iraq war. It skyrocketed after the invasion of Iraq. No. I disagree with you. Having an aggressive military out causing problems and enemies actually risks making things more dangerous, creates more enemies and makes securing oil more expensive. As is usually the case with anything involving more government – less is better.

A more open, free trade policy would allow us to befriend nations we cannot even talk too now. It would allow us to get into their “iron curtain” and infiltrate through peace and understanding, versus what we have today. Sanctions and war are not diplomacy and only create more negative consequences for the U.S.

I know we probably won’t agree on this but it’s all very true. The same consequences you see when government manipulates the market exists in arena of foreign policy as well. The more the government intervenes abroad the more money we spend, lives we lose and enemies we create. The only time we should engage in war abroad is when we’ve been directly attacked by another nation and even then the war would need to be declared through the congress.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM

riddick on November 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Gingrich isn’t a conservative, He’s an opportunist. During his first term, he was one of a small number of Republicans to vote for the Department of Education. He has always been pro-amnesty. As speaker, he opposed key provisions of e-verify. After he left Congress, most of his activities were moderate and pro-establishment Republicans (until he decided to run for President).

bw222 on November 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM

If anyone thinks that this is a centrist country with a leftist lean, then they need to start looking at the states and see what happened on the local level. Republicans actually had another 2010 on the state level and cleaned up again. I would recommend reading the following article:

Powerful Republican super-majorities elected to more state houses in 2012

Ronaldusmax on November 20, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I couldn’t possibly care less what Newt Gingrich has to say about this election. He made a circus of the primary, blackening our eventual nominee and forcing him to spend more than should have been necessary. And all for Gingrich’s personal ambitions since it was clear to anybody with eyes that he would never win.

Oh.. and no way I’m putting myself through a clip of the hags on the View.

Murf76 on November 20, 2012 at 7:18 PM

No way. The GOP doesn’t do identity politics. That’s for the Left. If they want liberty and freedom, they’re welcome to join. If what they want are micro targeted appeals to their “identity” (read racist pandering) they can vote Democrat.

sauldalinsky on November 20, 2012 at 5:17 PM

What does micro targeting have to do with identity politics?? The GOP cannot exist if it doesn’t reach out (NOT pander) to like minded people and tell them why the GOP is where they belong. You do realize the media, movies, school are dominated by the LEFT right? If you don’t micro-target certain groups they would NEVER hear the GOP message.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM

i read a lot of this thread. one thing i have to say is, stop it with the dividing voters up by racial groups. as a black person, it disgusts me because everyone here is saying “let’s give up on black voters” “most black voters are on welfare” etc no really, go through the thread and you see comments like that. but even if you weren’t saying those things about black voters… just stop it with the racial group divisions in general. that’s exactly what liberals do, they only see people as someone in a racial group. “latinos will like it if we do this…” “let’s go after asians by doing that…” “we can appeal to trinidadians and barbadians if we…” STOP IT.

I may not fully agree with how you phrased it (the part about 0dumba being ‘liked’ more), but I do agree with the gist of what you saying.

Mitt fed into the stereotype many uneducated “feelings” voters have about emotionally distant, unconcerned-with-minorities, rich, white males, and he did not have a clue how to combat that image. Those who minimize the importance of this aspect with many voters, blame them for it, and believe that it would have been a waste of time to try to reach them, are negative and rather ignorant and clueless about how those voters’ minds work.

Last night on O’Reilly, MKH tried to get this across to Bill, who was impervious to the idea that he is guilty of oversimplifying the “Santa” factor.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM

well i did see a lot of people on the internet really like obama a lot because they saw him as someone nice, caring, and likeable. they saw romney as mean and cold.

you’re right, romney just didn’t do a good job breaking out of the “rich snob” image. many americans did not think he truly, in his heart, cared about them.

and you’re also right about people oversimplifying the santa factor. it’s there all right but it’s not the only reason romney lost. whether we think it’s silly or not: likeablility matters.

Sachiko on November 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM

+ 100..You make a good point..:)

Dire Straits on November 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I see no irony in someone who’s waiting at the mailbox for a government check that is a refund of their own money taking issue with someone who’s waiting at the mailbox for a government check that is entirely someone else’s money.

Midas on November 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Those waiting for a refund are part of the parasite class compared to those whose tax money leaves their pockets never to return. So…those getting the refund should probably put a lid on “parasite” talk, unless they’re in the upper-income brackets. Therein, the irony. Get it?

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Gingrich isn’t a conservative, He’s an opportunist. During his first term, he was one of a small number of Republicans to vote for the Department of Education. He has always been pro-amnesty. As speaker, he opposed key provisions of e-verify. After he left Congress, most of his activities were moderate and pro-establishment Republicans (until he decided to run for President).

bw222 on November 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Maybe, and I’m no Gingrich fan. But if Gingrich is less-than-conservative, then Romney would have to be described as a liberal. Who’s done more in their political careers, Gingrich or Romney? No-brainer.

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 7:43 PM

You mean the adults who actually wanted to do the right thing AFTER the primary are bad people?

You know, it’s funny that the only people who are acting this butthurt are Palinistas.

kim roy on November 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Spot on..You just need to add the Ronulans..:)

Dire Straits on November 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Those “butthurt Palinstas” and “Ronulans” appear to have had more of a handle on what was going on than you did with your pom-poms. Have you ever been right about anything?

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Who’s the biggest bag of “Hot Air” : 1) Dick Morris 2) Gingrich 3) Limbaugh

Craig Nelson on November 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM

You kind of jumped all over the place and the Iraq War was not about oil but an attempt to bring Democracy to the heart of the middle east in the hopes it would spread to the rest of the region, and WMDs were listed as a problem as well. I no longer give a damn about Democracy in the Middle East, but my point is Iraq was not about oil.

As for Iran, if they go Nuclear then Saudi Arabia will soon follow suit with the entire region to follow. Since Obama will do everything he can to stop our own domestic production, we still have to do business with these backwards, savage people. No way in hell do I want Iran to get a nuclear region which would spark an arms race in the Middle East, no way in hell. I’m not going to wait for a direct attack on us or full out war to break out in the Middle East.

As for Israel, lets be frank here, the Arabs hate Jews and want them dead. They are not rational when it comes to Israel who is our only true ally in the region. Muslims have also shown aggression towards the West for centuries now, so no, they have no business getting a hold of Nuclear weapons.

The Suez Canal is one of MANY important trade routes that must be free and open despite what is going on in that barbaric region of the world. Keep the seas free and open is all I am saying, and keep Nuclear weapons out of the hands of our enemies. Iran is our enemy, but don’t take my word for it, take theirs.

The Ron Paul view that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone is just plain wrong. History proves him wrong, but this is the same guy who is still against involvement in WW2, WW1, and even The Civil War.

As I already mentioned, Jefferson learned the importance of a powerful Navy patrolling the seas during the first Barbary war, so lets stick with what works.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

2016 Winning gop candidate profile

Transgender

Had abortion in previous gender as a female

Worked for planned parenthood while attending college

Went to Columbia and Harvard

Has transcripts closed because the grades were really bad

Made friends with rich clientele as a hooker making money par-time to pay for birth control because she couldn’t afford the $9 a month.

Moved to San Fransisco after college

Registered as a Democrat until first job as State Senator

Advocated taking over the gop in the 90′s

Wrote column called “Radical republicanism” in San Fran paper

Appeared in several sitcoms in Hollywood in her/his 20′s

1/2 black 1/2 hispanic father

Single white mother (with native American father and Asian mother) that lived in government housing and went to college on gov’t funds

Did I miss anything?

PappyD61 on November 20, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Left out handicapped. Wait a minute, you said, he/she/it was a registered democrat? Never mind, it’s already covered.

Alabama Infidel on November 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM

“All through my career, I believed this was a center right country,” he said. “Now, I believe at best, it’s a centrist country with a dominant Left.”

It was.

The left imported a new nation, with the complete support of the Republican Party.

The old nation, that sent a man to walk upon the Moon, has been displaced, culturally and politically. And people like Newt Gingrich, whose duty it was to defend that older, better nation, did nothing.

David Blue on November 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM

“All through my career, I believed this was a center right country,” he said. “Now, I believe at best, it’s a centrist country with a dominant Left.”

I’ll respectfully disagree. This is still a center-right country. The Republicans just do a lousy job showing people why they (said people) should agree with them (the Republican party).

tgharris on November 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

…Hang yourself Newt…!!!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Maybe, and I’m no Gingrich fan. But if Gingrich is less-than-conservative, then Romney would have to be described as a liberal. Who’s done more in their political careers, Gingrich or Romney? No-brainer.

ddrintn on November 20, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Generally, I would agree with you, but, on some issues (e.g. immigration) Romney was more conservative. Newt’s “draft boards” (aka rubber stamp) was a joke.

bw222 on November 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Well…well…well…

Election season is over so I guess I can resurface at Hot Air.

I hate to say I told you so with respect to Romney but…

I TOLD YOU SO.

TheRightMan on November 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Who’s the biggest bag of “Hot Air” : 1) Dick Morris 2) Gingrich 3) Limbaugh Hannity

Craig Nelson on November 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM

fixed it.

bw222 on November 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

2012….2008….2004. Sure.

socalcon on November 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Newt Gingrich is worth listening to. He is taking the right approach. Study what happened. Realize that culture is powerful. Engage the Left everywhere. For conservatives to win in the future, what Newt figures out will be the road map.

Keep in mind that Newt does have real conservative achievements. He led the GOP to the takeover of the House for the first time in over 40 years. As Speaker, Newt forced Bill Clinton to balanced budgets and welfare reform. When Newt talks conservatism, he teaches and believes it. That matters.

Phil Byler on November 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I can’t believe how utterly full of himself, Newt is. He is typical of the real GOP problem. He is elitist, full of himself, and thinks his own **** don’t stink. Where was he during the election? Pretending that things were going well. Only now, in defeat, he tries to appear as if everything would have been fine, if only everyone had come to him and heeded his advice. I am sooooo tired of these leftover, past, disgraced losers who want nothing more than to try and seem relevant – mind you, winning elections doesn’t matter. Newt, please finally go away. You gave up and quit a long time ago…. now please, go publish a newsletter that no one will read.

seanrobins on November 20, 2012 at 9:43 PM

You kind of jumped all over the place and the Iraq War was not about oil but an attempt to bring Democracy to the heart of the middle east in the hopes it would spread to the rest of the region, and WMDs were listed as a problem as well. I no longer give a damn about Democracy in the Middle East, but my point is Iraq was not about oil.

As for Iran, if they go Nuclear then Saudi Arabia will soon follow suit with the entire region to follow. Since Obama will do everything he can to stop our own domestic production, we still have to do business with these backwards, savage people. No way in hell do I want Iran to get a nuclear region which would spark an arms race in the Middle East, no way in hell. I’m not going to wait for a direct attack on us or full out war to break out in the Middle East.

As for Israel, lets be frank here, the Arabs hate Jews and want them dead. They are not rational when it comes to Israel who is our only true ally in the region. Muslims have also shown aggression towards the West for centuries now, so no, they have no business getting a hold of Nuclear weapons.

The Suez Canal is one of MANY important trade routes that must be free and open despite what is going on in that barbaric region of the world. Keep the seas free and open is all I am saying, and keep Nuclear weapons out of the hands of our enemies. Iran is our enemy, but don’t take my word for it, take theirs.

The Ron Paul view that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone is just plain wrong. History proves him wrong, but this is the same guy who is still against involvement in WW2, WW1, and even The Civil War.

As I already mentioned, Jefferson learned the importance of a powerful Navy patrolling the seas during the first Barbary war, so lets stick with what works.

Daemonocracy on November 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I never said the Iraq war was about OIL, I said the price of oil skyrocketed after the invasion of Iraq. I have a tendency to believe it’s about OIL BEING SOLD IN DOLLARS, more than anything else. Both Saddamn and Ghadaffi were trying to sell their oil in gold. Oh look, so is Iran!

Anyway, there were no WMD’s, let alone any WMD’s that were a threat to the U.S. And yeah, I could give two shits about a democracy. Pure democracy is evil and Arabs will “vote in” Sharia Law in a democracy as well. In the end we’ll have spent a trillion in Iraq and have little to nothing to show for it. The GOP is still paying for this useless war within the electorate today imo.

I support ALL nations having nukes because then you’d have almost no wars. I know this sounds odd, but nukes force diplomacy and make war the very last resort – so such a degree I don’t know if there’d be any anymore – unless someone wants to destroy themselves? This obviously goes against mainstream established thought but the simple fact is American foreign policy says that Iran cannot have nukes because of what WE began in 1953. It’s stupid, immoral and dangerous.

Ron Paul is trying to change over 70 years of aggression from both the U.S. and Iran. He wants to reset the relationship and it is very possible. It was in Iran that they held the largest parade in support of the U.S. after 9/11. As for the Barbary war, that was a clear aggression and needed to be responded too. As I said, what we’re in need of is to be much more non-interventionist but that’s not pacifist. Ron Paul is not a pacifist – in fact, if directly attacked and with a declaration of war from the Congress, Ron Paul would be brutal in war. Because unlike the neocon war hawks, he would not engage in stupid nation building. He’d leave that country in ruins as a reminder to never attack us again. But with Iran we’re fighting with our own actions that begin back in the 50′s when we overthrew their government. America holds the power to change this relationship and could if it wanted too. The Iranians do not hate us, they’re not all “muzzies” or evil. That’s just nationalistic bullshit and rather ignorant. Iranians do not understand why America’s foreign policy is so aggressive toward them. They have no invaded another nation in hundreds of years.

I guess we can just say this – I would support the GOP, if it once again started to talk about no nation-building or policing the world. I also believe they must reduce spending in both welfare and warfare. If they don’t do this they will struggle to win another election. Just my opinion and in the end, we’ll see.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 20, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4