Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great article in The New Yorker about how badly the Romney campaign has been run:
When Romney decided to run in 2012, the best argument for his candidacy was that he had nothing to do with the Bush Administration and could appeal to moderate voters. But rather than trying to make a break with the Bush Administration and portraying himself as a different sort of Republican, one who has learned from the mistakes of the past, Romney has embraced the Bush heritage—one that delivered the Presidency to Obama in 2008. We see this in economic policy, where he has embraced the Republican orthodoxy that tax cuts are a solution to everything and tax increases are evil. We see it in the field of social issues, where he has pandered to evangelicals and conservative Catholics on issues like abortion and gay marriage. And now we see it in foreign policy, where he has given a platform to the very folks who led us to disaster in Iraq.
Romney’s blundering during the past couple of days is of a piece with his entire campaign. A man with an impressive résumé, whose best hope of victory lay in portraying himself as a moderate, independent figure—somebody not beholden to tired old orthodoxies, Democratic or Republican—has self-destructed by aligning himself with some of the least credible and most voter-repellant groups in the G.O.P.
Wow. There's no depth to which the left won't sink. I'm not interested in clicking on a link with a title that indicates Mitt wouldn't be a good prez because of a Libya blunder.
Here..let me explain:
Mitt isn't president. He has made NO Libya blunders.
Baracky, on the other hand, failed as big as a failure and/or blunder could. Four men are dead because of his blunders.
It doesn't surprise me, however, that some foolish writer/blogger on the left would insinuate Libya is someone else's fault. Anybody but 0bama, who can do no wrong.
This is so typical of the left, in every aspect of their pitiful little lives. It's always someone else's fault. Alinsky.
The conservative narrative is that Romney is the problem. No, the ideas of the party are the problem.
Romney got overwhelmingly the most votes in the GOP primaries. Why should anyone think that another candidate would have done better in the general election?
The problem is that to run in the GOP one needs to believe in certain ideas, like the government is always the problem, never a solution; cutting taxes on the rich and cutting programs for the disadvantaged; never raise taxes; must be anti-abortion and anti-science; against the concept of a minimum wage; and hostile to any regulation, no matter how sensible.
When the party tacks so far to the right, don't be surprised at the result -- losing a majority of voters.
conservatism is on the rise in america-not liberalism, because the hopey changey part is meaningless.
every american knows that the government TAKES from the private sector, and that the government has gotten bigger. we are now at the point where the government is taking TRILLIONS to enrich themselves and people are starting to struggle even more.
we all know that this is not sustainable, and if the social safety net collapses there are going to be millions of desperate americans. we also know that the government (no matter who is in power) will protect the most poor because they don't want a social uprising. bush, a republican, threw plenty of money into social programs and i have no doubt that romney will do the same. the liberals try and run a fear campaign, but that is all they have to offer anymore.
american lives aren't getting better under obama-their cost of living isn't going down-their own borders aren't protected (the #1 job of government) and our government isn't even protecting its own soldiers in foreign lands. bernanke is printing even more money in absolute proof of economic failure, and rising costs to poor and middle class americans.
i see on market ticker today that denninger explains this (and THIS is the speech that romney needs to give, romney advisers!):
So rather than lose their jobs, lose their companies and take their just medicine for what they had done, they conned Congress, Treasury and The White House into running a combined $5 trillion in deficits over the last four years. This amounts to about 10% of the economy every year since 2008.
You have been told that this, too, was for your benefit. That too is a lie. By running these monstrous deficits the Federal Government has effectively raised taxes on everyone, across the board, in the amount of those deficits -- to the tune of 10% or more every year for the last four years.
If you're in the middle class you know it's been tough; gasoline, food and other necessities have gone up in price dramatically. Health care has become more expensive. Your ability to buy the things that you need has been severely damaged and the job market has been trashed. The reason this has happened is that the government's deficit spending is nothing other than a tax on your income and assets -- indeed, it is a tax on every transaction in the economy.
Ben Bernanke of The Fed has argued that his "Quantitative Easing" has helped the jobs market and will continue to. This too is a lie; the entire and only purpose of this program is to allow the government to continue to run its monstrous deficits -- that is, The Fed is responsible for taxing you as an unelected private body.
The funds from this tax are not going into the economy.
Romney is running an above average campaign. He is just a terrible candidate, coupled with the fact that the Republican Party is at an all-time "low" in terms of ideas and governance.
Romney is running an above average campaign. He is just a terrible candidate, coupled with the fact that the Republican Party is at an all-time "low" in terms of ideas and governance.
There is a difference.
yeah, and deficit spending on the backs of american citizens is such a great idea by the obama administration.
along with defending the rest of the world against american citizens in foreign policy.
conservatism is on the rise in america-not liberalism, because the hopey changey part is meaningless.
every american knows that the government TAKES from the private sector, and that the government has gotten bigger. we are now at the point where the government is taking TRILLIONS to enrich themselves and people are starting to struggle even more.
we all know that this is not sustainable, and if the social safety net collapses there are going to be millions of desperate americans. we also know that the government (no matter who is in power) will protect the most poor because they don't want a social uprising. bush, a republican, threw plenty of money into social programs and i have no doubt that romney will do the same. the liberals try and run a fear campaign, but that is all they have to offer anymore.
american lives aren't getting better under obama-their cost of living isn't going down-their own borders aren't protected (the #1 job of government) and our government isn't even protecting its own soldiers in foreign lands. bernanke is printing even more money in absolute proof of economic failure, and rising costs to poor and middle class americans.
i don't think americans want more of that.
First, merely presenting a self-serving statement, like "conservatism is on the rise in america-not (sic) liberalism," without data to prove it, is meaningless.
Second, the government has not gotten bigger. If it did, there would be more employees and new government agencies and programs. The ACA, doesn't even go into effect until 2014.
Third, the safety net's enemy is the same enemy private insurance has, medical costs rising faster than inflation. if the safety net is unsustainable, neither is private insurance.
Forth, the Federal Reserves Congressional charge is to control inflation and encourage employment and as a result, has increased the money supply. Note that this is a good thing, without any downside. Interest rates are at historic lows and there is no inflation to speak of.
Summary: You have no idea what you are writing about.
The conservative narrative is that Romney is the problem. No, the ideas of the party are the problem.
Romney got overwhelmingly the most votes in the GOP primaries. Why should anyone think that another candidate would have done better in the general election?
The problem is that to run in the GOP one needs to believe in certain ideas, like the government is always the problem, never a solution; cutting taxes on the rich and cutting programs for the disadvantaged; never raise taxes; must be anti-abortion and anti-science; against the concept of a minimum wage; and hostile to any regulation, no matter how sensible.
When the party tacks so far to the right, don't be surprised at the result -- losing a majority of voters.
I agree. But could it be that Romney is a perfect manifestation of his party's internal problems? I think so. I think that's why he became the nominee.
It's not unusual that the the candidate who most accurately represents a party's problems gets hung out to dry by his own after the inevitable defeat. We old-timers saw this happen to George McGovern and Barry Goldwater.
I believe Obama is the Democrat's Reagan. Just like Reagan, he over-promised in his first campaign, and, like Reagan, he faced severe obstruction from the opposing party and came through. Like Reagan, those who opposed him were plentiful and vociferous, but nothing the opposition could say could overcome the force of the man's personality and leadership abilities.
About the only difference I see between the two is Obama had the landslide the first time, not the second. I am still certain that this race will be close. But I could be wrong- everyone said that about Reagan, too.
Possibly the amount of name-calling is an indicator of desperation and impending defeat. I well remember how the left called Reagan names. "Ronnie Ray-gun" was very widespread back then.
I also think Romney should stop with this 'Obama has failed' nonsense...
Yes, such a statement is good 'talk radio host' ganter...but it doesn't translate well over into a canidate running for election...
(you don't get former Obama supporters to vote for you by always insulting their initial decision to support Obama...it's basic phycology, and Romney advisors should know this...but they seem totally clueless to how human ego works...you always give people a gracious, polite way out...so that they can 'cross over' with their ego intact, and not bruised...)
It's an ugly statement...and everytime I hear Romney say 'The Presidents failed policies'...it's as if he's saying 'America has failed'...that those who voted for him have 'failed'...and it just rubs people the wrong way...
Like some pesty Mother in law or Father in law who always nags nags nags...after a while you just want them to go away...
Modern GOP canidates make the mistake of always trying to run their campaigns as if they're Fox News analysts...but that style and candor, and or political bias, only appeals to a certain targeted audience...and again doesn't translate well into a campaign for Presidency...
Take Sarah Palin...I was totally for her at first...loved that 'Maverick' independent spirit she had...but then she lost me, and millions of others when she aligned herself with 'Fox News'...and simply became a political wind up doll for Fox and talk radio...
You can't win elections being that politically viscious...
Why run, waste all that money, and time, and the time of others, if your not going to win...
GOP canidates in the future, need to stay away from Fox, and Hannity...if they do they will seem much more reasonable, and have a much more broader appeal...and that's how you win elections is by having a broad appeal...not by pissing everyone off under the sun and calling them names...
Romney needs to decide...does he want to join Herman Cain and become a talk radio host...or does he want to become the next elected President of America?...
Cause right now, he's going down the talk radio host route...unless he wises up...
Last edited by Time and Space; 09-27-2012 at 04:47 PM..
I also think Romney should stop with this 'Obama has failed' nonsense...
...
But it's true. 0bama HAS failed.
0bama is running anti-Romney ads that are stupid. Romney hasn't failed. He hasn't been president. It's not possible to fail at something you haven't yet done.
I'm willing to give Romney the chance to fail. We already know what we've got coming if 0bama wins. More abject failure. The only thing he will have succeeded at is making fools of Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
