The Republican war on Republicans

posted at 12:31 pm on January 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The endless navel gazing following significant GOP losses in the last election is far from over, and not all of it is pointless. We have people talking about significant policy changes in the platform to make the Republican brand more salable in national races, as well as ideas geared toward expanding the tent and bringing in a more diverse voter base. But Scott Rasmussen has a new editorial out this week where he believes he’s identified another issue to be tackled. There are, as he states rather directly, a number of “establishment GOP” types in D.C. who seem to have determined that the big problem with the Republican Party is all of those Republican voters.

Politico explained that while Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans “in many a post-election soul-searching session” have come to agree. More precisely, the article said the party’s Election 2012 failures have “brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment Republicans: They have a primary problem.”

As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that Republican voters think it’s OK to replace incumbent senators and congressman who don’t represent the views of their constituents. In 2012, for example, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle.

This infuriated establishment Republicans for two reasons. First, because they liked Lugar and the way he worked. Second, because the replacement candidate was flawed and allowed Democrats to win what should have been a safe Republican seat.

Scott goes on to say that observers are noticing a growing inclination in beltway GOP power centers to circle the wagons and make it harder for the unwashed masses to mount primary challenges to their media tested selections and proven winners. And I agree with his assessment that this is a fine strategy if your only concern is winning. But at what cost?

Before we get too carried away, let’s not throw the whole “winning” baby out with the bathwater here. If you don’t win, you don’t get to govern. But if your base feels that you’ve lost sight of your principles in the effort to win, they won’t turn out for you and the process becomes a self-defeating death spiral. By the same token, as difficult as it may be for some folks to accept, it is undeniable that the professional political class – or “the elite” as so many of you like to say – bring some important skills to the table.

Chief among these is the mountain of background research, tools, resources and experience required to conduct extensive vetting of new entrants to the political ring. While a rising red tide of grassroots enthusiasm for a new face is not only useful, but vital to a big win, the excitable hoi polloi are also frequently lacking in the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. Critics like to point to some of the really high profile losers such as Christine O’Donnell whenever this discussion comes up, but it happens at lower levels all across the nation.

In a race which went virtually unreported, the newly redrawn NY-22 district saw a Tea Party challenge in the 2012 primary to a GOP incumbent who was viewed as being too far to the left. The challenger they selected was a local Tea Party leader who turned out to be an unemployed guy who had failed to even be elected mayor in his home village and had supposedly lost an earlier business he started for not paying his taxes. In this case it turned out that the incumbent went on to win the primary in a landslide and then beat the Democrat by a similar margin. But what if he hadn’t? A seat in a reliably Republican leaning district could have once again been lost and gone to a flunky of the previous Democratic incumbent once all the news came fully to light during the general election race.

That’s just one cautionary tale among many. So how does this relate to the point that Rasmussen is making? He offers hints of a solution which should be worth a look.

Mature party leaders would spend a lot more time listening to Republican voters rather than further insulating themselves from those voters. They would try to understand why just 37 percent of Republicans nationwide believe the economy is fair. They would give serious thought to why just half of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of House Speaker John Boehner, the highest-ranking elected Republican in the nation. They would acknowledge that government spending in America has gone up in every year since 1954 regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.

Then mature party leaders would chart a realistic course to address these concerns and share those plans with the voters. To succeed, this course would have to include some painful medicine for the establishment, such as giving up corporate welfare programs that benefit their friends and allies. It also would require helping Republican voters identify primary candidates who challenge the establishment but could be effective on the campaign trail.

Tying these points together, D.C. Republican leaders can still hold on to their power and influence if they listen to those they are ostensibly leading and then use the tools at their disposal to work with grass roots activists rather than against them. If the voters are unhappy with an incumbent, fine. Don’t just fight them by backing the incumbent with unlimited money and then act sullen toward the challenger if they win. The better course is to get to work vetting the potential choices being put forth by the grass roots, pointing out lethal flaws if they exist and helping them identify challengers who are both ideologically palatable to the base and electable in the general race. It means not simply tamping down the impulse to keep fighting to the death for the status quo, but also demonstrating the strength to stand up to activists who are making untenable choices and saying, “Look, we hear you. But that’s not going to work. Let’s find someone who will.”

Or is that just crazy talk?


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 5 6

Just my opinion.

alecj on January 13, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Sadly your opinion not only is incorrect, it’s that kind of thinking that cost the GOP the 2012 election. Obama won for one reason and one reason alone,all other assertions are straight up bullshit. The single and solitary reason that Obama won, was because fewer Democrats stayed home than Republicans.

Romney wasn’t unelectable, the 60 million votes he received prove that beyond any question. Obama didn’t win because he got more votes, he won because more Republican spoiled butt hurt immature children stayed home. With a turnout rate of 58.9%, 126.8 Million votes cast Romney lost by a stunning 2.6%.

Democrats win because more of their base actually vote rather than stay home and pout because Palin, Bachmann, or Ron Paul didn’t get the nomination. That is the bottom line truth, and honestly nothing else counts.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Mitt Romney and John McCain were both attempts to pander to the middle as you are advocating and they both failed. Romney tried it in Florida and they voted for Obama. He tried it in Pennsylvania and it didn’t work there either. They, like most people despise boot-lickers and chose Obama rather than a wannabe.

It doesn’t work.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM

The only thing I’m advocating is ignoring your stupid plan to disenfrancise people.

How do you know what doomed Romney and/or McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida or any other state is that people despise boot-lickers? Is that what it actually was or is that just what you think because it fits your narrative?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

sure they haven’t got to the point of locking us up yet or shooting us but they have started down the slope that all dictators start at. Silence the oppistion. make it impossible for the opposition to challenge their rule. the next step when this doesn’t work is to use the force of law to keep their power and when that doesn’t work its the use of deadly force.

It is the same old same old that we have seen in history countless times.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM

GOPe is DNC. It is that simple.

That should be totally obvious to all at this point. They did not negotiate with Obama they just laid down and let him pass his bill. They in four years have yet to negotiate with him. Every single time they just lay down and give him as much as possible without completely giving up the ruse that they are not part of the DNC. Well by now if you are paying attention at all it is clear. GOPe is DNC.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Tell me what the GOPe believes in name me one issue, concern, or principle that they will not give up?

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Their place at the trough.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 3:24 PM

The single and solitary reason that Obama won, was because fewer Democrats stayed home than Republicans.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s almost as if they have principles, and don’t want to vote for a cheap version of the Democratic party.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM


The reason that they are negotiated away is because the party REFUSES to prioritize.

The party is constantly prioritizing. Even Romney had his 50 point plan powerpoints that he liked to point to like a nervous school boy in want of acknowledgement for all his good-boy hard-workism or something. The problem is that the party’s priorities in the form of its professional classes and tenured office holders are out wildly of synch with the party’s own base of voters. Hence the discord.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM </blockquote

Tell me who Redistricted West and bachmann's seat? And the low turnout due to Mitt being at the top of the ticket caused many of the 2010 wave to be voted out in marginal districts. So what was your point again?

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I joined the party in 1964 because I saw the rise of Goldwater as a rejection of “me-too Republicanism” as represented by Nelson Rockefeller and his ilk. I left the party in 2010 because of the rise of fools like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, again representative of “me-too Republicanism.” I rest my case in that respect.

Some say that election of people like Ted Cruz of Texas to the U.S.Senate is where the Republican salvation will come from, but take a look at Cruz. Princeton, Harvard Law, Clerked at the Supreme Courty, hardly the outside the beltway resume I expect from someone who wants to change things.

The only solution is the formation of a serious conservative third party. NOT THE FREAKS OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. Let the Republican establishement lose their seats eventually to a constituionally based conservative party, and they will still be sitting around wondering what happened.

georgeofthedesert on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

When you consider that West couldn’t even hold on to his seat, it is hard to credit the FL loss to a message that was too “moderate.”

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:23 PM

I think its more that the GOPe are progressives like the DNC. the liberals were smart they have made sure that progressives and quislings control all the leadership position in both politcal parties.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Exactly. There is no reason Conservatives can’t be the “Establishment,” be in charge so to speak.

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Yes there is: the GOP establishment changed the party rules that govern the primary process so that they can make up new rules and change the existing rules on a whim in the middle of the contest. They granted themselves the right to veto candidates, at least for the presidential nomination, that challenge the GOP establishment. If this rule had existed when Reagan was challenging the GOP establishment for the Republican nomination, the establishment certainly would have won! They would have simply changed the rules on the fly, in the middle of the primary, and Reagan’s cause would have been as hopeless as Ron Paul’s was in ’12.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2013 at 3:30 PM

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s almost as if they have principles, and don’t want to vote for a cheap version of the Democratic party.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Tragically no it’s not. What it is is that they have been brainwashed, indoctrinated to believe that it has to be their way or no way. In short, they exposed themselves as spoiled immature children. Ronald Reagan won by understanding that NOBODY is pure, NOBODY ever gets 100 percent of what they want. Being a part of something means you give up a little bit of yourself to get the majority of what you need. Compromise is not a dirty word, it’s only evil when one side dominates the compromise or the other side always capitulates and surrenders everything.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The only solution is the formation of a serious conservative third party. NOT THE FREAKS OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. Let the Republican establishement lose their seats eventually to a constituionally based conservative party, and they will still be sitting around wondering what happened.

georgeofthedesert on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

It would be much quicker and easier…to take back the Republican party.

The tea-party took solace in the 2010 midterm results and got a little complacent.

Mid-Terms turn out considerably less Low-Info-Voters.

There’s plenty of time to get organized and start the purge.

GOPe knows this…and they’re worried.

Prepare for a fight with the old-guard and retake the party.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:31 PM

How do you know what doomed Romney and/or McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida or any other state is that people despise boot-lickers? Is that what it actually was or is that just what you think because it fits your narrative?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s human nature to despise human windsocks. John Kerry lost for the same reason. People hold Boehner in contempt for exactly that. Romney has been on both sides of every political issue there is.

The GOP has been trying to appease Hispanics with ever worsening effects. John McCain was supposed to be the one who could bring them in and failed. Pennsylvania has been the holy grail for the GOP and they keep trying, and they keep failing. They respected Reagan who didn’t pull his punches, and they stayed home, or voted Democrat for the Republican political pygmies who followed.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM

When you consider that West couldn’t even hold on to his seat, it is hard to credit the FL loss to a message that was too “moderate.”

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

While redistricting is par for the political course, sacrificing incumbents is rarely part of the plan. But Republicans in Florida have put one of their own at risk.
Where usually Republicans are accused of reapportioning voters to dilute minority voting blocs, in the case of Congressional District 22 in South Florida, it may be conservative Republican Rep. Allen West, one of the few black elected Republicans in Florida, who ends up losing power. West is currently at the center of Republican infighting over redistricting, and legal challenges may result from the effort.

West, a Tea Party darling who once likened himself to freedom fighter Harriet Tubman, is apparently expendable to the new plan’s architects. Party members in the congressman’s district, which includes Boca Raton, are fighting back, and have even launched a website, http://www.saveallenwest.com, to advocate for the fiery congressmen, despite the fact that incumbency cannot legally be considered in the redistricting process.

According to Tampa Bay Times, “In an open letter to members of the Florida legislature’s redistricting committees, the top brass of the Broward County Republican Party have registered this complaint: your maps don’t protect our incumbent.” The local leaders claim that the plans will hurt West, whose district as it stands is almost evenly split among Democrats and Republicans. The new proposed district would essentially slice off a largely Republican section and would add a Democratic swath. But the letter may do him more harm than good, as it could trigger a lawsuit.

West lost had nothing to do with a “message” even with the new district West was almost able to win which meant he got many dems to vote for him unlike Mitt.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

NOBODY ever gets 100 percent of what they want.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:30 PM

They know that, and they also know the difference between 100% and getting near identical results if the Democrats win. So they stayed home.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Excuses, excuses. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM

NOBODY ever gets 100 percent of what they want.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:30 PM

They know that, and they also know the difference between 100% and getting near identical results if the Democrats win. So they stayed home.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Bullshit, they stayed home because their personal favorite candidate didn’t get the nomination, they stayed home to teach the GOP Leadership a lesson. A pox on their houses.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Some say that election of people like Ted Cruz of Texas to the U.S.Senate is where the Republican salvation will come from, but take a look at Cruz. Princeton, Harvard Law, Clerked at the Supreme Courty, hardly the outside the beltway resume I expect from someone who wants to change things.

The only solution is the formation of a serious conservative third party. NOT THE FREAKS OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. Let the Republican establishement lose their seats eventually to a constituionally based conservative party, and they will still be sitting around wondering what happened.

georgeofthedesert on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Cruz assembled a coalition of thirty-one states in defense of the principle that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution It only gets better from there GW Bush got Cruz to tutor him on what real conservatism is for his 2000 run as a Conservative. Of course he did not offer Cruz a position because in reality GW Bush was a pure GOPe man. So have no idea your point. Fact simply is if you want to be the best lawyer in the USA Harvard is your only choice. You never clerk for the SCTOUS without it hardly. Actions speak far louder than words or educational choices when there really is no choice.

You may be right about a third Party to put the GOP out of it’s misery though.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Bullshit, they stayed home because their personal favorite candidate didn’t get the nomination, they stayed home to teach the GOP Leadership a lesson.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Yeah…they did.

They don’t want to vote for your liberals any more than they want to vote for the Democrats liberals.

You aren’t offering anything they want.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM

they stayed home to teach the GOP Leadership a lesson. A pox on their houses.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Aside from a few nutcases here…I don’t know any conservative that didn’t go to the poles, hold their nose, and vote for romney.

I’ll take a squishy repub flip-flopper over a confirmed marxist anytime…just don’t EVER (RNC) ask for my money or vocal support.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Tell me who Redistricted West and bachmann’s seat? And the low turnout due to Mitt being at the top of the ticket caused many of the 2010 wave to be voted out in marginal districts. So what was your point again?

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

And, Joe Walsh was sacrificed in order to keep Boehner’s “Mini-Me” Randy Hultgren in office in Illinois after the Dem’s redistricting put them in the same district.

Fallon on January 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM

excuses? Let’s see the GOP takes a 50/50 GOP/DEm district that West easily won in 2010 and places more DEms and less GOP voters in then idiots like you try to point to it as a loss of the Tea party. amazing when called on it you whin “excusees excuses”. what’s the matter you can’t handle the truth. the GOPe took out West, plan and simple.

How’s that Mitt win working for you? What is your excuse for the sound defeat that you boy Mitt took on the chin?

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

The bottom line, as I see it, is that America was in no mood to act like grown ups on 2012. The country WANTED Barack Obama in the WH. They were willing to swallow the lies and calumnies about his opponents. They were willing to accept the lousy economy because they wanted to believe that it was all the fault of the evil rich and Bush and anyone but themselves. They wanted to believe that if the evil rich could just be made to “fair share” of their money it would make the nation a fair and prosperous place. Sad, but that’s the way of it. America opted for a comforting fiction over an uncomfortable recognition of the cold, hard facts.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM

While a rising red tide of grassroots enthusiasm for a new face is not only useful, but vital to a big win, the excitable hoi polloi are also frequently lacking in the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Mightily disagree here. I live in Israel now and the Israeli elections are January 22nd. The Likud party (Netanyahu’s party) merged with Yisrael Beiteinu (the foreign minister’s party) and they were expected to win big – taking their 45 seats and going up to 50 or even more. But now they are expected to not get more than 35 seats or so in the election because Yisrael Beiteinu is a secular party and that didn’t sit too well with a bunch of Likud’s religious voters.

Lo and behold, we have the Bayit Yehudi party, with 7 seats in the current parliament (combined with the party with whom they have merged for this upcoming election) and the polls show them getting as many as 14, 16, there was even an IDF Radio poll showing them getting 18 seats, probably becoming the third largest party if not the second largest party after being irrelevant for about twenty years. Why? Because the party elected a new leader, Naftali Bennet, with almost no political experience, and wiped out all the old blood that helped make the party irrelevant. Why is Bennet so popular? Because he speaks the simple truth and brings strong, principled leadership. The party establishment got kicked out and now the party is on a meteoric rise.

This is DESPITE the fact that Likud elected a much more right-wing slate of MKs to try and bring right-wing voters back. Didn’t work at least in the polls. The establishment lost.

Jazz – the electorate is NEVER. EVER. EVER. wrong. End of story. Including in cases like Christine O’Donnell. Any thinking otherwise is just antidemocratic and it really is that simple. The Tea Party kicked out a lot of establishment incumbents in 2010 and the Republican Party enjoyed some of the biggest gains in history. While the party needs to make some changes to its platform, the concept of issuing primary challengers against party incumbents is a most sacred and necessary tool to keep the establishment in line.

solatic on January 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Bullshit, they stayed home because their personal favorite candidate didn’t get the nomination, they stayed home to teach the GOP Leadership a lesson. A pox on their houses.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

No I did not vote for Mitt Romney because he was a Democrat in his own 2002 words. Most stayed home for the same reason.

We are about ready to end the GOP because of arrogant people like you. You give us no say in our own party. You work tooth and nail to destroy our candidates then blame us when they lose. Yet you belly ache that we do not fight for your candidates.

Arrogance and Hypocrisy must be what GOPe stands for.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM

West lost had nothing to do with a “message” even with the new district West was almost able to win which meant he got many dems to vote for him unlike Mitt.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Back in 2011, after West voted to increase the debt limit, I predicted he would lose his reelection bid, and I was right. He shouldn’t have stabbed the tea party in the back.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

And, Joe Walsh was sacrificed in order to keep Boehner’s “Mini-Me” Randy Hultgren in office in Illinois after the Dem’s redistricting put them in the same district.

Fallon on January 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

hmmm didn’t know that thanks for the information

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

He shouldn’t have stabbed the tea party in the back.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

true he should have known his new friends would stab him in the back. if he remained true to the tea party he might have pulled out a close victory instead of having a close defeat even with the redistricting.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM

They know that, and they also know the difference between 100% and getting near identical results if the Democrats win. So they stayed home.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

The Democratic voters knew they would vastly prefer the Dems over the GOP. And they didn’t stay home. And they won. If they were so very close to the GOP, they wouldn’t have showed up, but they did.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM

lol…poles = polls.

(apologies to my polish brothers and sisters…or any offended strippers)

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Aside from a few nutcases here…I don’t know any conservative that didn’t go to the poles, hold their nose, and vote for romney.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Well those few nutcases… and about 6.5 million others.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/estimated-6.6-million-fewer-white-voters-showed-up-to-vote-in-2012/article/2513069#.UOysro76TMM

But it is shocking to discover that when given the choice to vote for or against President Obama, a large group of white voters simply chose not to participate in the elective process. Perhaps it serves as an additional warning to the Romney campaign and Republicans. Not only did they fail to properly defend their candidate, they were unable to make their party platform appealing enough to attract the same amount of voters as they did in 2008.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Sad, but that’s the way of it. America opted for a comforting fiction over an uncomfortable recognition of the cold, hard facts.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM

that’s your excuse for the total defeat of Mitt and his cronies in 2012? That is your excuse on why Mitt the moderate and “the one that could win (poll tested)” lost to the worst POTUs in modern times? Well hope it lets you sleep at night. enjoy being clueless.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM

The Democratic voters knew they would vastly prefer the Dems over the GOP. And they didn’t stay home.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Yes they did. Millions upon millions of Obama voters stayed home.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Back in 2011, after West voted to increase the debt limit, I predicted he would lose his reelection bid, and I was right. He shouldn’t have stabbed the tea party in the back.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Except he did not lose. He won the election he only lost the fraudulent count. His “loss” is proof positive of fraud in elections. For example the woman running on the DNC ticket for my congressional seat in Maryland also voted in Florida for at least the last 8 years, like millions of Democrats do. Did she go to jail when this came out hardly. They did nothing to her other than force her off the ticket they were destined to lose anyway.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Bullshit, they stayed home because their personal favorite candidate didn’t get the nomination, they stayed home to teach the GOP Leadership a lesson. A pox on their houses.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Wrong. Santorum was my favorite, but I would have voted for Gingrich, Perry, or Bachmann.

The reason I didn’t vote for Romney was because he was notorious for saying garbage like this.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM

lol…I know, I’ve seen this…it’s jaw-dropping…but, honestly, I’ve never met one.

and (aside from honda and his one or two fringe buddies here) – how many do you know?

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM

I think that is closest to the heart of it. A great many who leaned towards Romney would have easily made the difference, but they were too apathetic to show up. Their apathy was not due to the message being too centrist, but rather too uninspiring and with too little fear instilled of the alternative which we have. I think that a great many who stayed away, deep down, welcome a nanny state and don’t want to see any erosion done to their “social safety net.” The danger, as grave as it is, is still an abstraction to most and they don’t believe that things can get as bad and as quickly as I am sure it will some day by staying on our present course.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Wrong. Santorum was my favorite, but I would have voted for Gingrich, Perry, or Bachmann.

The reason I didn’t vote for Romney was because he was notorious for saying garbage like this.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Well thank you for helping Obama to win…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Well thank you for helping Obama to win…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM

If you want my vote, nominate an acceptable candidate.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Sadly your opinion not only is incorrect, it’s that kind of thinking that cost the GOP the 2012 election. Obama won for one reason and one reason alone,all other assertions are straight up bullshit. The single and solitary reason that Obama won, was because fewer Democrats stayed home than Republicans.

Romney wasn’t unelectable, the 60 million votes he received prove that beyond any question. Obama didn’t win because he got more votes, he won because more Republican spoiled butt hurt immature children stayed home. With a turnout rate of 58.9%, 126.8 Million votes cast Romney lost by a stunning 2.6%.

Democrats win because more of their base actually vote rather than stay home and pout because Palin, Bachmann, or Ron Paul didn’t get the nomination. That is the bottom line truth, and honestly nothing else counts.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM
…………………………………………….
Exactly if we can’t even get our base out because they didn’t get 100% of what they wanted we may never win elections again.
Its called organization. The RNC is as weak there as they are when it comes to party political strategy.
For you third partiers out there just remember 20 years after you form your turd party and people actually realize you exist the same 100% percenters will be coming back saying the new third party is not quite good enough for them. They don’t get everything they want and now they need a fourth party. And maybe even a fifth.
Winning is always the best strategy.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

they were unable to make their party platform appealing enough to attract the same amount of voters as they did in 2008.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Or drum roll 2010. This is what is so maddening. Every one here acts like 2010 never ever happened because Conservatism won. It would have won in 2012 except the GOPe stuffed it where the sun don’t shine.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Well thank you for helping Obama to win…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM

If you want my vote, nominate an acceptable candidate.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM

All it takes for evil to triumph is good men to do nothing, thanks for doing nothing.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Yes they did. Millions upon millions of Obama voters stayed home.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Some did, but more of them showed up then we did. They won.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Well thank you for helping Obama to win…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM

NO. Hell NO.

You get 100% of the credit for that. You and the rest of the GOPe that forced Mitt on us when in election after election we spoke loudly Anyone But Mitt.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

All it takes for evil to triumph is good men to do nothing, thanks for doing nothing.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Oh, I did something. I voted for Virgil Goode as a protest vote.

If you hate evil, don’t nominate an evil man like Romney.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

It would have won in 2012 except the GOPe stuffed it where the sun don’t shine.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

No, YOU stuffed it where the sun doesn’t shine.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

The only “primary problems” Republicans have are the Democrat Super Delegates, and ‘open primaries’.

Abolish those, and the Republican “primary problem” solves itself.

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM

What do the superdelegates have to do with anything? They only affect how the Democrats select their nominee. The Republican party doesn’t have superdelegates.

Even if the Dems wanted to select their nominee by holding a seance and having FDR, JFK and LBJ’s ghosts choose the nominee, that is their business.

(I agree with you that open primaries are often problematic.)

J.S.K. on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Winning is always the best strategy.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

And the best deodorant (who was it, Derocher maybe who said that)

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Their apathy was not due to the message being too centrist, but rather too uninspiring and with too little fear instilled of the alternative which we have.

True, the message was Romney had wasn’t too centrist, it was too leftist.

I think that a great many who stayed away, deep down, welcome a nanny state and don’t want to see any erosion done to their “social safety net.”

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM

If the president were to be reelected you’re going to see a $716 billion cut to Medicare,” Romney said. “You’ll have 4 million people who will lose Medicare Advantage. You’ll have hospitals and providers that’ll no longer accept Medicare patients. I’ll restore that $716 billion to Medicare.” – Mitt Romney

Mr Romneycare was the guy they were afraid was going to cut entitlements?

Try again.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Well thank you for helping Obama to win…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM

NO. Hell NO.

You get 100% of the credit for that. You and the rest of the GOPe that forced Mitt on us when in election after election we spoke loudly Anyone But Mitt.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM
………………………………………….

Hey Mr. 100 percenter you got anybody but Mitt happy now?
I thought all the low information voters were on the other side.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:03 PM

and (aside from honda and his one or two fringe buddies here) – how many do you know?

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Dozens of posters here have said the same thing.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Hey Mr. 100 percenter you got anybody but Mitt happy now?
I thought all the low information voters were on the other side.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Awww, but you see, it’s not their fault… It’s the evil GOPe’s fault for not nominating their preferred candidate.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM

The grand total of all of the H/A posters and those who think like you add up to something considerably less than bupkis in the scheme of things.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 4:05 PM

NO. Hell NO.

You get 100% of the credit for that. You and the rest of the GOPe that forced Mitt on us when in election after election we spoke loudly Anyone But Mitt.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

YOU failed to come up with a candidate to beat Mitt. Since that seems to be your raison d’etre, it falls on you to come up with a better solution.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Oh, I did something. I voted for Virgil Goode as a protest vote.

If you hate evil, don’t nominate an evil man like Romney.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM
……………………………………..
So in essence you picked up all your toys, went home and kept on sucking your thumb like a good little four year old.All because you didn’t get your way.
How did that turn out for ya?

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM

No, YOU stuffed it where the sun doesn’t shine.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Arrogance, Hypocrisy and Condensation. The hallmarks of GOPe.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:07 PM

No, YOU stuffed it where the sun doesn’t shine.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Arrogance, Hypocrisy and Condensation. The hallmarks of GOPe.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Coming from you, those words have little meaning and even less sting.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM

If you hate evil, don’t nominate an evil man like Romney.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

And there it is.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Hey Mr. 100 percenter you got anybody but Mitt happy now?
I thought all the low information voters were on the other side.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:03 PM

100%??? I am not seeing even 10% here.

It’s a puzzle.

Show me the conservative in this picture.

My views are progressive – Mitt Romney

In 1992, Romney voted in the Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, saying Tsongas’ views were more closer to his own than Bill Clinton’s.

Romney donated to the 1992 campaign of U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, a New Hampshire Democrat; Rep. John LaFalce, a New York Democrat; and Democrat Doug Anderson, who was running for the Senate from Utah.

“It is now my pleasure to introduce my collaborator and friend Senator Edward Kennedy.” – Mitt Romney

“Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.” – Mitt Romney

I’m not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That’s not what brings me to the race.” – Mitt Romney

I wasn’t a Ronald Reagan conservative.” - Mitt Romney

Hillary Clinton Is Very Much Right, It Does Take A Village, And We Are A Village And We Need To Work Together In A Non-Skeptical, Non-Finger-Pointing Way…” – Mitt Romney

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

‘I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.’ – Mitt Romney

These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment. – Mitt Romney

Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s camp is defending a controversial program he created that handed out free wheels to Massachusetts welfare recipients — including state-funded insurance and AAA memberships…

The Deval Patrick administration, mired in a fiscal crisis, hit the brakes on the program. Too fiscally irresponsible even for the Democrats.

Supported TARP
Supported auto bailouts
Supported ethanol subsidies

‘I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ – Mitt Romney

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” – Mitt Romney

“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” – Mitt Romney

Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts while governor

Romney refused to sign the No New Taxes pledge when campaigning for Governor

“I will work and fight for stem cell research.” – Mitt Romney

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM

All it takes for evil to triumph is good men to do nothing, thanks for doing nothing.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Oh, I did something. I voted for Virgil Goode as a protest vote.

If you hate evil, don’t nominate an evil man like Romney.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

No, you did nothing. What did you do to prevent Obama from being reelected… NOTHING, that’s what you did.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:11 PM

The grand total of all of the H/A posters and those who think like you add up to something considerably less than bupkis in the scheme of things.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Tell that to President McCain and President Romney.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Dozens of posters here have said the same thing.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM

based on the numbers, you’re obviously correct…I’ve just never met one in real life.

and I’m pretty sure alot of those posters were lib-shills and flame throwers…most of the real trouble-making ones are now gone…

The true believers are the ones still here (God love ‘em).

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM

YOU failed to come up with a candidate to beat Mitt. Since that seems to be your raison d’etre, it falls on you to come up with a better solution.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM

What is your point?

You assured us that Mitt would run while you used every dirty trick in the book and out spent the others ten to one. You assured us Mitt would absolutely positively win.

No he absolutely positively lost, most likely on purpose, and you are blaming us for his being the nominee?

You put him up and assured us he would win. You are 100% responsible for his loss in a race he continually went soft on Obama in. Mitt never tried to win that race he did try to stay close but he made sure he was always going to lose. He never attacked Obama to even 10% the degree he attacked the other Republicans in the Primary. He never defended himself in a meaningful way. He never once personally attacked Obama in fact his spokesman even called Obama GREAT. GREAT really in what alternative universe is OBAMA GREAT? Only the universe of the DNC which is where Mitt is 100%.

Now after the loss his son informs us Mitt never wanted to be President.

This is the man you assured us would win. You should hide your face in shame. Instead you blame every one but yourself and the miserable movement that produced this loss.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM

But it is shocking to discover that when given the choice to vote for or against President Obama, a large group of white voters simply chose not to participate in the elective process. Perhaps it serves as an additional warning to the Romney campaign and Republicans. Not only did they fail to properly defend their candidate, they were unable to make their party platform appealing enough to attract the same amount of voters as they did in 2008.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM
………………………………………….
The Problem with your conclusion is that there is a well know pathway for becoming President. You need lots of name recognition,lots of money and a well oiled campaign. Then you need to win a primary.
After the primary all the dems come together no matter who their candidate is.And, they get nothing but loser after loser,they still stick by them.
Until we learn to do the same we better be happy with the hillarys or obamas cause that’s what we will get.
You can blame the GOP all you want but anyone who can’t see the difference between a commie like obama and Mitt Romney is just a stupid 100 per center, IMHO,yet another low information voter.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Christine O’Donnell is hardly an anomaly among the “grassroots” losers. In the last two cycles, off the top o’ me ‘ead, we had her, Sharron Angle, Buck & Maes in Colorado, Miller in Alaska, Mourdock, and Akin.

It is not correct to claim people like Rubio and Tim Scott among these, as they were established vote-getters long before running for national office. [Mourdock and Akin had been elected to the House, but in extremely safe districts - Scott's House seat was safe Republican but very competitive and he beat out a 9-man primary field].

Of course it isn’t all a grassroots problem. People like Lugar and Bennett got arrogant in power. It’s not that their compromises were necessarily wrong when they made them, it’s that they not only failed to explain the reasons they were right to their constituents, they rejected the idea they had to explain at all.

You can hate on “the Establishment” (whatever that is, are you a bunch of hippies?) all you want, but the country will NEVER be changed by pitching away EASY Senate seats like we did in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, and Indiana. Maybe no one could have whipped Reid in Nevada, but he was underwater in the polls and we put up the worst possible candidate. Checking all the right boxes on the issues questionnaire doesn’t make someone a viable candidate.

Adjoran on January 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM

and I’m pretty sure alot of those posters were lib-shills and flame throwers…most of the real trouble-making ones are now gone…

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM

A lot of them seem to be posters who are returning after the elections who left (I presume) rather than get into a fight every day with some of the rabid Romneybots and get called traitor.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM

No, you did nothing. What did you do to prevent Obama from being reelected… NOTHING, that’s what you did.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:11 PM </blockquote

hell I voted for Mitt and to this day I can't say for sure if Mitt would have been any better than Obama. Take the gun control debate do you really think with a GOP liberal like Mitt we wouldn't have a gun control bill passed and signed by now?

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 4:18 PM

After the primary all the dems come together no matter who their candidate is.And, they get nothing but loser after loser,they still stick by them.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM

That’s great if its a sports team. If you have values that amount to more than that, then it gets more complicated.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM

No, you did nothing. What did you do to prevent Obama from being reelected… NOTHING, that’s what you did.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:11 PM

When you nominate Obama’s clone, right down to Obamacare, I can’t really say that you did anything to help.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM

You don’t know my life!!!! (Sassy voice) :P

I was a Palinista but she didn’t run. I moved to Cain and he flamed out. Romney won the primary and I supported him. He didn’t win the general. Who did you support and what did you do after Romney won?

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Adjoran on January 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM

I can name as many establishment guys who lost.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Yes that is the hypocritical trick they use. They run a person that is for all practical reasons a Democrat. One that is a Democrat on 100% of the issues.

They then blame us for not supporting a candidate that is not 100% to our liking. You know the one that is 0% to our liking.

Pure Hypocrites.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:22 PM


Well thank you for helping Obama to win…

It’s Romney’s fault Romney lost. It was Romney’s task to connect with the voters, not the other way around. He failed. He failed with his own damned base. Oh, and apparently the super-genius numbers guy couldn’t read a damned poll or a run a damned campaign.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM

No, you did nothing. What did you do to prevent Obama from being reelected… NOTHING, that’s what you did.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:11 PM

When you nominate Obama’s clone, right down to Obamacare, I can’t really say that you did anything to help.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM

You decided that Obama was the better choice, end of story. Don’t give me that protest vote crap, because that is exactly what it is. You chose Obama. Live with it. You go right ahead and pretend that your hands are clean because you voted for someone YOU KNEW could not possible even come close to winning.

YOU made the assertion that Romney was even more evil that Obama and then you acted on that choice by doing something that helped Obama win reelection. No matter how you parse it, try to deflect it or cover it up, you chose evil.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM

the other day I was thinking, transformers is the perfect analogy for politics. The Autobots represent liberals, with their socialist and environmentally friendly ways while the Decepticons represent the conservatives, with their power-hungry and dog-eat-dog mentality.

nonpartisan on January 13, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You wouldn’t have Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio if the establishment had it’s way. We at the grassroots would only see establishment Republicans that we are suppose to support as they compromise us straight to Hell.

Let’s point out they don’t have great batting average when it comes to picking winners either (Crist and now Christie come to mine) and I will gladly accept the loss by Richard Murdoch and Akin in exchange for some friggin accountability that we DIDN’T see in the Senate’s 89-8 vote on letting some of the Bush tax cuts go up.

Conan on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM


Romney won the primary and I supported him.

If Pol Pot or the devil himself had won the primary would you have supported him? I already know the answer if you supported … Romney.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Pure Hypocrites.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:22 PM

You keep using that word, I do not think that it means what you think it does…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Yes that is the hypocritical trick they use. They run a person that is for all practical reasons a Democrat. One that is a Democrat on 100% of the issues.

They then blame us for not supporting a candidate that is not 100% to our liking. You know the one that is 0% to our liking.

Pure Hypocrites.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:22 PM

I guess asking for more than 10% agreement is being a filthy “purist’ or something.

They are refugee Democrats who don’t like the socialist turn that the Democrats took. Sad for them, but that is what liberalism leads to. Doesn’t mean the GOP should become liberal.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Awww, but you see, it’s not their fault… It’s the evil GOPe’s fault for not nominating their preferred candidate.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM
……………………………….
I keep hearing that here. I expected a lot more out of this place! Not third graders mad because the teacher changed the flavor of their lolly pop. Amazing anyone would compare Mitt to zero and then stay home.Truly stupid.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Pure Hypocrites.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:22 PM

You keep using that word, I do not think that it means what you think it does…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Did you support Aiken and O’Donnell?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:27 PM


the other day I was thinking, transformers is the perfect analogy for politics. The Autobots represent liberals, with their socialist and environmentally friendly ways while the Decepticons represent the conservatives, with their power-hungry and dog-eat-dog mentality.

I don’t remember the autobots demanding free birth control.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Amazing anyone would compare Mitt to zero and then stay home.Truly stupid.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:26 PM

What’s conservative about Romney?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:27 PM

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM
……………………………….
I keep hearing that here. I expected a lot more out of this place! Not third graders mad because the teacher changed the flavor of their lolly pop. Amazing anyone would compare Mitt to zero and then stay home.Truly stupid.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Quite I believe that they did so because despite their protestations to otherwise, they swallowed the Fifth Column Treasonous Media’s kool-aid by the gallon.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:28 PM

You decided that Obama was the better choice, end of story. Don’t give me that protest vote crap, because that is exactly what it is. You chose Obama. Live with it. You go right ahead and pretend that your hands are clean because you voted for someone YOU KNEW could not possible even come close to winning.

YOU made the assertion that Romney was even more evil that Obama and then you acted on that choice by doing something that helped Obama win reelection. No matter how you parse it, try to deflect it or cover it up, you chose evil.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Actually, wrong. I decided that neither of them was the better choice. You picked a terrible candidate that couldn’t win, and you sold your soul to do it. Live with it. You have sided with evil.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 4:30 PM

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Did you support Aiken and O’Donnell?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I’m in California. I neither supported them nor opposed them, since they were not in my district. Stupid equivalency question are only asked by useless imbeciles.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Wow. What does this even mean:


Quite I believe that they did so because despite their protestations to otherwise, they swallowed the Fifth Column Treasonous Media’s kool-aid by the gallon.

The former Romneyists are really bitter, wouldn’t you say?

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Adjoran on January 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Wow an impressive list of candidates the GOPe fought against.

For example Sharon Angle in the end every single Republican of note in Nevada endorsed Harry Reid. GOPe thinks Harry Reid is preferable to Sharon Angle. Really?

Christine. They day she won to the day of the election Karl Rove viciously attacked her. The GOPe she defeated endorsed Chris Coons the Democrat she defeated. Then she lost. While she was partly to blame she had no chance with no help and plenty of harm coming from the GOP.

Meanwhile you blissfully ignore the the huge number of GOPe people that have lost. In 2000 we gave GW Bush both houses. But his GOPe principals lost in election after election. By 2008 so many GOPe members of the House and Senate had lost that Odumbo had a filibuster proof Senate and nearly as high a percentage in the House. You know because GOPe always wins. NOT.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:31 PM

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Actually, wrong. I decided that neither of them was the better choice. You picked a terrible candidate that couldn’t win, and you sold your soul to do it. Live with it. You have sided with evil.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. You just keep telling yourself you did nothing wrong… go on…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I am sick and tired of the “moderate” BS they love to spew about Ronald Reagan as a raison d’etre for caving on conservative principles.Let’s get this straight-Reagan compromised to get as much of his conservative agenda as possible,Boehner and McConnell compromise away conservative principles to advance the progressive agenda.You freaking unprincipled moderates can have the GOP,it is dead to me.Can’t wait to see it fail when conservatives stay home and close their wallets.Bring on the Nationalist Party!

redware on January 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM


Actually, wrong. I decided that neither of them was the better choice. You picked a terrible candidate that couldn’t win, and you sold your soul to do it. Live with it. You have sided with evil.

This is what I love about Romney. He’s always bringing people together. 2 months after Romney passed into the well-deserved ignominy of complete obscurity his few dead-ender followers still attack the rest of us for not loving him enough or something.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 4:33 PM

I’m in California. I neither supported them nor opposed them, since they were not in my district. Stupid equivalency question are only asked by useless imbeciles.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:30 PM

You would know that.

You are the master of that after all.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Pure Hypocrites.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 4:22 PM

You keep using that word, I do not think that it means what you think it does…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I’m in California. I neither supported them nor opposed them…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:30 PM

In other words no.

I think that word means exactly what he thinks it does.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. You just keep telling yourself you did nothing wrong… go on…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Says the man who voted for the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-cap & trade, pro-gun control, pro-universal healthcare Romney.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Wow. What does this even mean:

Quite I believe that they did so because despite their protestations to otherwise, they swallowed the Fifth Column Treasonous Media’s kool-aid by the gallon.

The former Romneyists are really bitter, wouldn’t you say?

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Yo imbecile, I’m not a Romneyists, I’m an independent who believed that a moderate like Romney was the lessor of two evils, the greater evil being Chairman Obama. Ya, I know, a bit to complex of a concept for an imbecile to grasp, but there it is.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Hey Mr. 100 percenter you got anybody but Mitt happy now?
I thought all the low information voters were on the other side.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:03 PM

100%??? I am not seeing even 10% here.

It’s a puzzle.

Show me the conservative in this picture.

“My views are progressive” – Mitt Romney

In 1992, Romney voted in the Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, saying Tsongas’ views were more closer to his own than Bill Clinton’s.

Romney donated to the 1992 campaign of U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, a New Hampshire Democrat; Rep. John LaFalce, a New York Democrat; and Democrat Doug Anderson, who was running for the Senate from Utah.

“It is now my pleasure to introduce my collaborator and friend Senator Edward Kennedy.” – Mitt Romney

“Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.” – Mitt Romney

“I’m not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That’s not what brings me to the race.” – Mitt Romney

“I wasn’t a Ronald Reagan conservative.” – Mitt Romney

“Hillary Clinton Is Very Much Right, It Does Take A Village, And We Are A Village And We Need To Work Together In A Non-Skeptical, Non-Finger-Pointing Way…” – Mitt Romney

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

‘I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.’ – Mitt Romney

These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment. – Mitt Romney

Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s camp is defending a controversial program he created that handed out free wheels to Massachusetts welfare recipients — including state-funded insurance and AAA memberships…

The Deval Patrick administration, mired in a fiscal crisis, hit the brakes on the program. Too fiscally irresponsible even for the Democrats.

Supported TARP
Supported auto bailouts
Supported ethanol subsidies

‘I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ – Mitt Romney

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” – Mitt Romney

“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” – Mitt Romney

Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts while governor

Romney refused to sign the No New Taxes pledge when campaigning for Governor

“I will work and fight for stem cell research.” – Mitt Romney

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM
……………………………………………………….
So I guess you are happy with wind mills instead of oil wells, the destruction of the coal industry, the EPA up everyone’s ass all the time,loosing country after country in the mideast to the MB, letting embassy people die in Benghazi and then covering it up,looting the treasury to the tune of five trillion and then challenging us to stop his reckless spending.
Yeah I guess we would have got all that from Mitt Romney.
After all you stayed home didn’t you.
Ignorance is never a defense.
You can go back in the corner now and keep sucking your thumb.Sorry I disturbed you.
Actually you aren’t worth the time it takes to point out just how ignorant your argument really is,you look more like a troll anyway.

rodguy911 on January 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Boy, we sure did show them. They tried to slip one by us. We knew better. 0 is certainly far better than Rmoney™. What were we thinking? May it all burn down and go straight to heII boys.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM

This is the thread we’ll all been waiting for. A knockout fight between the so-called moderates and so-called trucons. Last one standing gets to clean up the blood.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM

It’s human nature to despise human windsocks. John Kerry lost for the same reason. People hold Boehner in contempt for exactly that. Romney has been on both sides of every political issue there is.

The GOP has been trying to appease Hispanics with ever worsening effects. John McCain was supposed to be the one who could bring them in and failed. Pennsylvania has been the holy grail for the GOP and they keep trying, and they keep failing. They respected Reagan who didn’t pull his punches, and they stayed home, or voted Democrat for the Republican political pygmies who followed.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM

You’re still just making bold statements without support or evidence. “It’s human nature to despise human windsocks.” Okay. How do you know this? What evidence do you have that this is true? How do you know people thought of Romney, McCain and Kerry and human windsocks, and that this was the deciding factor in the defeat of all three men? You don’t know any of that, or if you do you’ve not provided evidence to support it.

To go along with that, how do you know people voters respected and supported Reagan because he didn’t pull his punches? That’s more supposition without support. I could just as easily say “People loves Reagan because he wore shirts with extra wide collars and used a wide Windsor knot for his tie,” and it would be just as well supported as your argument.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6