The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election
Furthermore, the Super Squish is someone who won’t lose votes on social issues. He’ll never bring them up, and if Democrats bring them up, he’ll immediately capitulate to what they want to keep those issues from being problems. And maybe he can support them on some things to show he doesn’t agree with those scary religious Republicans. Ideally, he himself will be an abortionist. This would certainly keep women voters from being frightened of the Republican candidate; they love abortions.
Also, the Super Squish will not be another one of those Republicans who mindlessly invoke Ronald Reagan and instead will really chastise the Republican Party’s love for him. He’ll tell Republicans, “Reagan would be ashamed of the Party as it is today. Also, I’m ashamed of Reagan, because he’s not as great as everyone pretends and was actually quite divisive. Yes, everyone likes him now, but they shouldn’t. So let’s never mention him again except to say how ashamed he would be of today’s GOP.”
Similarly, the Super Squish will take on the religious wing of the party that pushes it to extremism. “The only things I believe without question are things that people in white lab coats say,” he’ll lecture the religious nuts. “If Jesus didn’t warn us about climate change, then maybe He wasn’t that great a messiah. So let’s never mention Him again except to say how ashamed He would be of today’s GOP.”
And I guess the Super Squish can support some conservative idea to shore up the base a little… like what’s a really harmless right-wing idea? Balance the budget? No… that implies some severe spending cuts. Anyway, this perfect candidate will have some sort of conservative idea he’ll favor… but he’ll only mention it if a reporter really presses him on why exactly he is a Republican at all. And he’ll be profusely apologetic about it, knowing that mentioning it might hurt the feelings of people who disagree with him.
Finally, this Super Squish will not be a minority or a woman, as it’s highly offensive to them to imply that one of them would actually be a Republican.
So who is this Super Squish? We don’t know yet, but we’d better start looking now. Start with any Republican allowed to speak on MSNBC. And we must have him ready for 2016 before the wingnuts start to rally around another far-right disaster like McCain or Romney. If the Republicans have finally learned their lesson, they’ll embrace the Super Squish, and the Super Squish will in turn keep them at arm’s length so as not to appear too Republicany. And while the Super Squish won’t win the presidency (beating a Democrat is racially insensitive to their numerous coalitions), he’ll run a campaign so inoffensive to the left that they’ll pat us on the back and say, “You ran an honorable campaign, predominantly white people.”
Ah, it will be nice to hold our heads up high again.
So basically we need to put Meagan McCain on the 2016 ticket?
Yeah! Jeb Bush + Megan McCain! There’s a winner!
Bwahahahahaha!
The sad thing is, that Jeb Bush is a media favorite.
Wouldnt that be wonderful, the faux conservative and yet another Bush, so that Dems can run against Bush YET AGAIN in 2016. Sad to say, but that really could be a reality, and that would without a doubt destroy the GOP once and for all.
The perfect Republican candidate would be COLIN POWELL. Colin always sees the progressive viewpoint as a little too far right. He is definitely a post-racial candidate, that is why he endorsed Obama twice. NY Times, Washington Post, Alphabet Networks would be ecstatic. He could even get Mike Huckabee as a running mate as we race headlong into being another Argentina or Weimer Republic. If Mike isn’t available Susan Collins or Cristy Whitman could be available to balance the ticket.
It is worse than people think, the GOP is complicit in ways that will shock.
Chicagogate: Cover-up Exposed
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/11/30/chicagogate-cover-up-exposed/
COLIN POWELL? You got to be kidding me! Firstly, anyone endorsing Obama is delusional. Also, I was very disappointed when Powell stated to the UN that trucks used by Iraq where dual use (chemical weapons production) when they were obviously not.
Powell should have resigned in protest to Bush’s Iraq invasion. He choose to be an obedient officer rather than stand on principle. 40,000 casualties and billions of dollars later we know what a waste these war are turning out to be. Containment was the best policy.
I’m afraid your post is further proof that sarcasm tags are needed for Internet writing. Some suggestions:
[s] [/s] = normal sarcasm
[hs] [/hs] = heavy sarcams
[vhs] [/vhs] = very heavy sarcasm
[xs] [/xs] = extreme sarcasm
Note that abortion and gay marriage are debates where both sides of the debate are left wing.
‘Social Conservatives’ are economic leftists. They just have a thin veneer of religion that annoys the atheists. But that is it.
Pro choice : the fetus is expendable.
Pro life : the father is expendable.
Neither side says the woman should be held responsible, while neither side says the father has any rights at all. Yes – social conservatives are dumb enough to think abortion will go down by punishing MEN.
Gay marriage : What a bogus issue. Even if it were legal, it would not obstruct straight people from getting married. Rather, it is a mechanism via which cowardly Social Conservatives can avoid dealing with the REAL reason the marriage rate is dropping – marriage has become a terrible deal for men, BECAUSE, social conservatives are 100% aligned with feminists in rigging the laws in favor of women to an extreme degree.
Also, 41% of babies are born out of wedlock in the US. You can thank social conservatives for that, since they think single motherhood is only the fault of the man, hence they pass laws that transfer money from the man to woman with no questions asked of the woman, leading to many women being single mothers by choice.
Until the leftists who call themselves ‘Social Conservatives’ are expelled, the GOP will never win. The Tea Party was the first attempt to discuss fiscal soundness without the baggage of the ‘socialism is good if the beneficiary is a woman’ crown, also known as Social Conservatives.
Wow!! As a social conservative I never knew I was a socialist. That must explain my insane desire for free sh*t.
Perhaps the most anger-filled, fact free missive I’ve ever read online. Not deserving a response beyond derision.
You are just stumped and outwitted, and thus embarassed.
Social conservatives want big government, because they love to grovel to women (even though this repels women).
Whether the government interferes in business (Democrats) or in personal lives (‘social conservatives’ who vote Republican), it is just big government.
That is why social conservatives and feminists are in surprising agreement when it comes time to punish innocent men, and transfer the costs of female misdeeds onto men and children.
How bout’ a fast basturd/colnonic powell ticket? Talk about super squish.
In a nutshell, if Repubs decide to put up another RINO -just like McCain, and less so like Romney…who was still far better qualified than McCain the milquetoast – then surely they will remain in the political wilderness.
And it is not as if trying to be all things to all people will gain them any respect, let alone votes.To the contrary. The fact of the matter is that it is because the Dems go for broke that they cleaned the Repubs clocks, two Presidential races in a row, despite an over the cliff economy!!
So, if being a loser is in ones game plan, go right (no pun intended)ahead and play a loser’s hand. But if being a winner is the game plan, then take pages out of the left’s revolutionary playbook and go for broke.
And Repubs who go along to get along will once again be smacked down in the polls -http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/29/republican-national-convention-heralds-arab-spring-in-its-platform-oblivious-to-the-unfolding-arabmuslim-nightmare-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
IF one does not stay true to ones roots, and prefers to be all things to everybody, then be prepared to stay in the political wilderness. It is what it is.
Again, IF you stand for everything you stand for nothing.
May be it is time for a Conservative Party to emerge. Something that is NOT LIBERAL in any sense (not in the classic sense and certainly not in the way “Liberal” is understood in the US now.) The GOP is not the party of Goldwater and Reagan anymore. Why bother with its corpse? We should all have left when they blew it with Bob Dole. Come on! It works like the Soviet Politburo!
The emergence of the Tea Party was a sign, the GOP is over. They are happy with the crumbs that fall from the Democrat’s table. They have a veritable Conservative majority and they managed to make them stay home this election. Face the facts: the GOP sucks and it has to be sent to geriatric elephant cemetery. Put them out of their misery! Anyone who expects the GOP to save the country is delusional.
Can’t find “TEA Party” on the ballot. Can’t beat somebody with nobody.
Until we have a secure voting system, it will be impossible to get our Republic back. Otherwise, it won’t matter who we have on the ticket because they’ll steal the election anyway.
That is IT in a nutshell!
Why should something so obvious be so difficult to understand? The 2012 election
was STOLEN and there appears ZERO outcry!
AD
Can we please start with eliminating open primaries?
That’s why I wonder why Paul Ryan is never mentioned. Paul Ryan has a big advantage: He’s young, dynamic, good-looking and has a considerable amount of charisma. Besides he has some experience with the show now. If he got slightly more moderate about some points that are not important (who cares if homosexuals get married, really?) and focussed on the more important points like economy and American culture, besides the Democratic Party’s desastrous Middle-East policy he could be an idea too. I think the GOP needs a young and dynamic person with some experience, and I considered Paul Ryan an excellent pick for Vice. I wonder how a majority of Americans could neglect that and go on with somebody like Biden. Besides this choice for Vice made it clear that Mitt Romney might have been an excellent president as he reached out to the next generation instead of putting qualities like gender (BS) or race (terrible as the US were nearly postracial before O.) in the first place. The next generation should count, a younger candidate with experience. And maybe a minority-Vice, something like that.
Calling Romney extreme is ridiculous.
What is extreme is bankrupting America to fund social engineering.
See “The Regressives” for more on this baleful breed at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
Calling Mittens or McCain anything but RINO is ridiculous.
If the Republican party wants to survive it is time for a jihad against RINO’s. Unfortunately much of the establishment of the party are happy to be in the minority they get their paycheck and perks along with the kickbacks and insider stock deals without having to be responsible for anything.
Republicans need a candidate who will go to bat for capitalism as something other than the zero-sum game that Democrats represent. Populism will get us nowhere. Either we go for wealth creation through supply side economics or we die as a nation and as a party. See http://clarespark.com/2012/12/01/petit-bourgeois-radicalism-and-obama/.
I keep *tellin* ya, PJM, ya gotta go to fontforge and install font parody, maybe even grab parody-politic if Iowahawk hasn’t copyrighted it already. Otherwise, things just go *right* over people’s heads.
This article is nonsense.
In states where Republicans were running for the U.S. Senate, Romney did better than nearly all of them. Romney wasn’t the problem. Akin and Mourdock were the problem.
What killed the GOP was the extreme stance by Akin and Mourdock and others, that a rape victim won’t be able to terminate her pregnancy and will be forced to give birth to her rapist’s child.
As Ann Coulter (no liberal she) said: “No law will EVER force a rape victim to bear her rapist’s child.”
Perhaps the author left out the future HTML 6.1 tag /sarc.
I didn’t leave any /sarc tag out.
I meant exactly what I said.
Romney won a larger share of the popular vote than the GOP Senate candidates did. Romney did far better in Missouri than Akin. Romney did far better than Mourdock in Indiana. Etc.
Meaning that millions of citizens there were voting a split ticket: They voted for Romney but they voted for the Democrat Senate candidate too.
That speaks volumes about the type of candidates the GOP was running. Most of these Senate candidates weren’t “RINOs.” They lost anyway.
And btw, Allen West–another staunch conservative–lost too.
Single women are the second fastest growing voting group in America after Hispanics. And the GOP’s stance opposing abortion even in cases of rape, and \giving tacit approval to social conservatives who are still railing against birth control as enabling recreational sex (how horrible!), is killing the GOP’s chances of winning the single female vote.
You didn’t leave out the putative /sarc tag and neither did the author. However, In Indiana, if you add the libertarian vote to the Republican vote, you get:
Democratic Joe Donnelly 1,263,885 49.88%
Republican Richard Mourdock 1,124,058 44.36% −43.00%
Libertarian Andy Horning 146,002 5.76% −6.83%
Look, I’m really tired of you guys thinking with your vaginas. I keep hearing that fiscally conservative, socially liberal (essentially “atheistic hedonism with small taxes”) want smaller government, but what you want is government spending money on your silly hedonistic hobbies (ESCR/embryonic vivisection, abortion, contraception, gay marriage) while cutting…what? Social security? That won’t fly; at least Obamacare solves that problem (IPAB gets rid of the pesky Boomers), and keeping its Big Butt in our bedrooms (because Roe WAS the federal government getting involved in abortion, and until Maryland, same sex “marriage” was forced upon an unwilling populace by judicial thugs).
You berate us for not holding our noses every presidential election but I held my nose in 1992 (after my water broke, on my way to deliver my oldest daughter who just got to hold her nose for the very first time! snif), 1996, 2008, and 2012. But your complaint in 2010 and now 2012 is not that the hedonist wing didn’t hold their noses in November but that conservatives didn’t hold our noses in May. When you get angry at us for not valuing Money and Sex more than Life and Eternity, you just look like total asses and it doesn’t get you more votes, just more resentment. These posts just read like “We aren’t your allies!!!111!!!! We AREN’T your allies!!! We aren’t your ALLLIES!!!11!!! Why the hell aren’t you OUR allies!!!111!!! Don’t you know this is about SEX???!!” OH yeah, and “We believe everything the LSM says about social conservatives like Richard Mourdock. He wants to force women to have babies by rape!!! But why does the LSM keep misrepresenting us?”
So. I’d suggest you sit down and think with your “other girl part” about what’s more important, berating people whose votes you want to add to your own, or getting rid of “atheistic hedonistic Communism”. We do believe that life begins at conception, and that our immortal souls are in jeopardy if we participate in all those social ills that have been plaguing the country ever since Antonio Gramsci proposed they be adopted as a way of weakening America. Which is the next point:
Social liberalism destroys realms that try it, historically, and it’s fairly well documented that Communists in the middle of the last century hoped to foist it upon America in order to weaken her, paving the way for Glorious Communist Revolution. So why do you all only reject the fiscal side of Communism but not the moral? What, exactly, is it about hedonism that makes you think it will make America stronger? You do know that there are fewer and fewer children, right? Who’s going to pay taxes when your branch dies out? Which segues into the next part:
You need us more than we need you. For one, we tend to reproduce more than you do (I know, right? Pro-lifers have more kids! Who knew? And then we actually show up to participate in the political process. Which is also known as “co-opting the Tea Party”) Another is that persecution has a plus side for a Christian; we fully expect it. Christians were used as human torches during Nero’s dinner parties, so paying the Healthcare jizyah is no big deal, relatively speaking. But for you guys, you think this is all there is. I don’t know which is more important to you, money or sex, but it doesn’t look like you have much of a voting bloc (Libertarian party picks up about 5%?) that supports you having all of both that you want. It’s a tough choice ahead of you. Good luck!
Oh, and Frank? I think you’re looking for Dick Lugar. Or maybe Mike Castle? Olympia Snowe? Too bad Arlen Specter died, because he probably fit the bill better than anyone else!
Ooops. I’m referring to senatorial races, not presidential, that you complained about in 2010 and 2012.
This.
So what should the republican platform be ? What actual legislation should conservatives fight for ? I have now seen a number of posters who get very angry that libertarians propose a consistent small government message/platform, one that limits the federal government to those enumerated powers of the constitution.
Some social conservative posters equate the desire to remove abortion, gay marriage and the general coarsening of society from national elections with being told to shut up. I really don’t understand this. To me it is a fact that the federal government doesn’t get to punish murder, the several state do. The federal government doesn’t get to regulate marriage either, or to criminalize what you eat, drink or smoke. This is plainly what the constitution says. What is so awful and offensive about trying to defend the structure of constitutional government ?
In response to libertarian suggestions of alliance social conservatives respond in one of two ways. They threaten to leave the republican party and take all their friends and relatives with them, or they insult those who would like to see abortion ,gay marriage and marijuana handled by the several states(as per the 10th amendment) by calling them dupes or suggesting they are motivated by a desire for sex or drugs . I would really appreciate it if you, or your compatriots could do two things. 1) show where in the constitution of bill of rights the federal government is authorized to enforce laws against murder or enforce laws against growing, possessing or smoking any plant , or granting the federal government the power to in any way regulate or officiate marriage. 2) Give an explanation of what legislation , what changes to government would satisfy social conservatives.
Is it that you feel that dealing with the moral/spiritual decline of the country is of vastly greater importance than seeking to restrain the federal government to its’ constitutional limits ?
Well said, Jeannette. Perhaps long winded repetition will work. Keep up the excellent work.
Mr Burns,
I think these are issues best left to the states. I don’t think you have a huge number of Americans opposed to referendums on marijuana or gay “marriage”, but what about referendums on “life at conception?” I’d vote no on legal pot if it came to my state, but I don’t think it would wreck the Constitution to have it win (My mocking tone was from Warren bringing it up smack dab in the middle of a “what happens if there’s a Red/Blue revolutionary war, and we have The End of Civilization As We Know It?” conversation, which made him kinda look like a clueless stoner lol).
I’m prolife as all get out, but I doubt I would get hugely involved in a referendum effort to declare that life begins at conception, just because I think there are more effective uses of my “pro-life effort” time. I’d vote yes. I think support for overturning Roe would be a good idea, emphasizing that it’s because the federal government is spending too much time and money arguing about it and because it’s too intrusive on people’s everyday lives. If socially liberal conservatives would join in supporting sending the issue back to the states, it would go over a lot better. Everyone on this side of the aisle would need to be well-educated on what would and would not happen (I’m aware of two states’ status: Indiana has a standing ban on abortion, Virginia had legal abortion even before Roe). Similar on ESCR, contraceptives, PP, NEA (both of them). These are divisive expenditures. None would balance the budget on their own, but when the house is going into foreclosure, it’s long past time to cancel the porn channel on the cable lineup. If you can agree to cut funding and oppose judicial imposition of sketchy social issues, you’d make just about everyone except Judie Brown happy (she’s rarely satisfied with anyone’s effort but her own…) It would be tricky getting the current platform replaced, but right now it’s vague. If it came with a specific action plan with a timeline, it would probably go over well.
Probably won’t be able to cut any SS or Medicare until IPAB starts killing people off; at that point, “increase retirement age and slow annual increases” will look pretty good. Which budget items are you thinking of, that socons don’t want to let go of?
See Reply #42…as it didnt link up here.
“giving tacit approval to social conservatives who are still railing against birth control as enabling recreational sex (how horrible!)”. And here you have perhaps unwittingly touched on a major problem. Unless it went completely under the radar I know of NO prominent social conservative who actually proposed prohibiting or limiting birth control. On the other hand I know of MANY who view the government forcing any religious institution to pay for birth control that the institution opposes as an infringement of religious liberty. The MSM sold a basic freedom of religion issue as “The GOP hates teh Vagina!” so well apparently that even some on our own side bought it.
You got it.
But it’s easy to sell if your target of persuasion already is an Anti Christian bigot…as the ranks of libertarians and social libs are. They want to believe.
“And the GOP’s stance opposing abortion even in cases of rape, and \giving tacit approval to social conservatives who are still railing against birth control as enabling recreational sex (how horrible!), is killing the GOP’s chances of winning the single female vote.”
So, you don’t see anything odd about a candidate claiming they think a fetus is a human being and then turning around and stating they have no problem with what they normally call an unborn child being executed without trial if the mother accuses the father of rape? Any candidate holding positions that inconsistent is either lying about one, lying about both, or just mindlessly repeating whatever polls well with focus groups without actually thinking or caring much about the issue.
btw, Romney may have won more votes than Mourdock and Aiken, but he still couldn’t get as many as McCain. Seems the conservative electorate has spoken, keep on nominating moderate milquetoasts and more of us will start staying home on election day.
You were right in naming Mourdock and Akin. They played right into the hands of the so called “war on women” and couldn’t keep their mouths shut.
Sure, to win elections Republicans should lie like Pelosi. We can wear the Catholic robe of righteous holiness while proudly advocating abortion of babies.
The short take-away is “You must stand for some thing”.
I’m with you Frank, except on the gender. What we need is one of those abortion loving, misandrist, social liberal, fiscally sort of conservative types – kind of a Hillary Clinton with an ‘R’ behind her name.
I think Mark in #1 was right on with Meagan McCain as suggestion.
See, Mitt Romney was too smart and too accomplished for his own good. That’s scary and probably unfair. We need some pure dumb ass without accomplishment to be able to communicate to the millions of Obama voters – got to get at his level to fight. Somebody that’s not going to get tangled up with concerns about printing money and somebody whose good with the line: safe, legal and RARE. That makes abortion okay. You’re for it, even relish it, but you don’t want it too often – like a heavy dessert.
And what I would suggest is some limp wristed male for V.P – perhaps a Washington dinner guest TV personality. One that’s comfortable on MSNBC, friendly with Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. How about David Frum for VP? If you really want to push to the envelope, you could get Ron Reagan Jr. – he could criticize the old man.
Tex, you won’t believe it.
I was all set to offer as a sarcastic choice for 2016 Hillary Clinton, Republican.
You beat me to it.
But David Frum might be a problem for VP. He was born in Canada.
Or is offering a non-American born candidate for VP another sign of the “New, New, New Republican Party”.
This article merely expresses the extreme left-wing delusion as if it were fact. But those saying the Republicans need to stop putting up “RINOS” are wrong too. The lesson of the 2012 presidential election is that both parties have been (long) compromised, to the point of takeover, by their respective extreme factions (even the blasé businessman, Romney, spouted too-far-right dogmas, too easily), and because of that they have merely strengthened the divisions, among the people, that work to tear the country apart. The entire Democrat party is now insane, behind Obama and the cultural, class and racial behind-the-back warfare he has stood for, as a man truly without character other than his own deluded, grandiose self-image. In short, people are not looking for the best in one another, and instead of working to heal the divisions, Obama and the Insane Left (my term) are using them to wage outright war on the Right, with “no give and all take” as many have noted. Much of the electorate is not up to the task of letting go of their dogmatic (unquestioned) biases, the most prominent of which today is, on the part of the Insane Left, the demonization of the Right, and its concommitant, unthinking acceptance of the moral superiority of the Left. Obama did not defeat Romney; he defeated George Bush again, just as he did in 2008. We have incompetent, power-mad activist leftists in power, incompetent rightists unable to confront that abusive power, and an incompetent, divided electorate. I can tell you how to solve it peacefully, but almost all of you won’t believe it: Renounce your dogmas, every one, but most especially “an eye for an eye” (I’m talking to you, blacks and latinos, most especially). Obama’s “tax the rich” is really just the desire for revenge, nothing more (as it won’t help the national debt problem, as many have shown). The Left is operating on revenge, is in open war on that basis, and is insane therefore. That is the lesson this country is faced with, but will not face. Only the Golden Rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you (not, as they have done to you before) — can save this republic.
I take it this is satire? Romney was anything but a right winger, unless you consider his right arm was wound tightly around Obama’s left as they dragged each other toward bigger government with Obama shouting “Forward!” and Romney “not so fast or they might catch on.”
duhh.. ya think?
Couldn’t agree more. Nail on the head, finger on the button – oops maybe shouldn’t have said that.
John McCain and Mitt Romney – how could they – following in the footsteps of the masters/demi-gods (why not as we are now blessed with their Messiah) of the far right-wing political party so popular with the population.
That part of the population for which the Constitution is archaic, irrelevant and defective for the modern world. Must be. Created long before the smashing of the atom, the universal personal computer and Facebook, etc. Way way out of date.
The major role models in living memory JF Kennedy, LB Johnson and little Kennedy brother Edward. Who as Father of the Senate for virtually his entire life picked up elder brother’s baton and ambled to the finish line bowing to his many many admirers while institutionalising the far right wing methods and goals of their Party. The sweetener that respected elder statesman and “pillar” of the Party WJ Clinton. First officer during the 1990s with spouse Hillary whose great idea was Hillarycare now called Obamacare, preparing the ground for apearance of Messiah for the fundamental transformation as is fitting at the Millenium. But the burning Bush intervened.
With a little help from their friends insinuated into policy echelons of every civic institution especially education/brainwashing, propaganda/information/entertainment, and legal/courts/redundant amendments to the Constitution. With the rules and regulations for administering the bureaucracy so necessary for their goals. Since their shot across the bow in the 1960s.
Calling themselves liberals and democrats. Their models also made racial and sexual differences crucial in their methods and aims. And they too called themselve Socialists. However the liberal-democrats-rinos now consider them to have been fascists, whatever that means in this modern world. But it does very well as clarion call to troops to man the barricades.
Plus ca change.
Disturbing how many commenters cannot recognize satire.
Is a little frightening, isn’t it? I actually thought this column was pretty humorous. Maybe I better explain my response was parody too.
sure is
Dole, McCain, and Romney, all RINO Republicans, lost. George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative,” who basically spent money at a huge rate only at a much slower rate than a liberal Democrat, got elected to two terms in office. There are only two ways Republicans can now win given that roughly 47% of the American public now in some way feeds off of the Federal government. They can either become “Democrats Light,” like George W. Bush and spend a lot of money (just not as much as the real Democrats), or they could actually try something strange and new and actually run on real conservative principles and mean it. They could actually BE for smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and less spending.
Would it work? Not a chance, at least not at the presidential level. Face it, America, the majority of the nation wants “free” stuff, from Obamacare to food stamps to endless unemployment benefits. And let the “evil” rich pay for it. THAT is what won in the last election, the acceptance that socialism isn’t such a bad thing after all. The mere fact that we will become Greece by 2016 doesn’t seem to matter to people who are getting money, careers, pensions, and endless medical benefits from the government NOW.
What can we do? There really is only one thing we CAN do. Get A LOT more conservatives elected to Congress. A LOT more. If we can keep the House and eventually take over the Senate, at least you can exert a lot of pressure on a liberal Democratic president. And every Democrat from now on will BE a liberal. They have to be because they will owe so much to every minority and special interest group out there. No, the only hope we have is by taking over Congress and maintaining our lead with Republican governors. Conservatism seems to do much better at the local level than at the national level. If we can do that, maybe we can change some minds and then, one day, make a conservative more acceptable at the presidential level. It’s worth a try, at least.
The original post was pretty funny, but not nearly as funny as “There really is only one thing we CAN do. Get A LOT more conservatives elected to Congress.” THAT was HILARIOUS.
Well, it worked in 2010 and if we had some stronger candidates for Senate in 2012 we would have won back the Senate. It takes time to build a party around real conservatives. But with people like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, we proved that we can do it. Take your pessimism elsewhere. That doesn’t win elections. And we will win, especially if conditions in the country are rotten by 2016, or even 2014 for that matter.
Mr. Fleming,
Perhaps you should also ask the question what lesson have Democrats learned? Socialists throughout history have been analytical also through politcal proganda, and social networks. Lenin, Marx and liberalism has spread as far as to sea to shininng sea. Decline and Fall of Anglo America is a Democrat problem not a Republican. They have set the seeds in Motion. World Renowned Historian Victor Davis Hanson who I am a understudy off makes a great case for this. Mitt Romney was a moderate and the wrong color being white.
Assimilation and the Great American Welfare State appeals to post modernists, who enjoy the rich being rich and poor being poor. Obama and the Democrats were in a platform without God, because it is the latest trent. In Edward Gibbon’ Decline and Fall Of The Roman Empire Christainity caused Rome’s Decline and Fall, ironically the lack of christain morals and the socialist era of greed corrpution and arogance has only creatined more follies in History and President Obama and the Demorcats being the great dancing fools within the confines of the Christain Bible. Standing for somenthing the academic forgets book in training before leaving earth. It is not good to just read and stand in the ivory towers of less faith and believe their is no higher power like the Democrats party has done.
The Democrats are the repusled.
Obama is a policial zealot yeller who is for Obama and has convinced both low income African Americans, Hispanics and Asians that some how he is there great prophet of hope and change.
Columists such as yourself are merly cashing in on the Democratic gravy train. Check your history kind sir, the Republican Party not only was Lincolns and freed the slaves but it also was the party of choice of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s.
The New York Times has always been a liberalist driven paper that promotes the Democratic side. Un biased column would be taking both sides of the criticsm, which doesn’t appear to the be the case her.
We will give you positive reinforcement within the confines of your column but at the same time your blogs attack on Republicans does not include one of Democrats why?
The answer a lack of humility makes for money just as it does for a Socialist. Greed, power and corruption means lack of morals and of Christan standards.
Romney never said he hated blacks but the Democrats were the ones he picked up the ticket of name calling.
If one were to open the Chritan bible or even understand the military history as it goes so well with bibilical prophecy this blog or column would have been much better suited for a Queen who eat her crumpets with Jam.
The good side you did a great job at attacking Republicanism, the bad side you have forgot like so many other Americas what it means to be a Patriot! Our military who Romney supprots and who I support have not. Perhaps you never served or perhaps you only serve Democrats and Socialist. Best wishes with your repulsions and watch out for Star bucks coffee filled with Socialist proganda, and poison along with the socialist created social network face book. Thanks for the article it kept some of my intest.
J.W. Carter (Carters Fort Publising 2012)
Wow! You’re really serious here, aren’t you?
Obviously, some comenters don’t recognize satire when they see it. The Republican establishment elites and their over-paid consultants spent much time and effort to convince enough Republican primary voters that Romney was the only “electable” candidate. Post-election these same people have been the most vocal in criticizing Romney and his campaign performance. But even if they managed to get their nearly perfect Super Squish candidate in 2016 who would strive to be on the side of the majority on every opinion poll issue, that candidate would still likely lose. The Democratic party has become a socialist party. Until socialism in this country is thoroughly discredited, which the Republican Super Squish would be unable or unwilling to do, he will have difficulty in defeating a true socialist (e.g. Hillary Clinton) by acting as a pale imitation of one. Apparently the GOP establishment see their future in being like the Tories in the UK, who have morphed to being now only slightly to the right of Labour. If the GOP establishment manage to get their perfect Super Squish candidate (e.g. Jeb Bush) nominated, the only advantage would be that it would spur the growth of a truly viable third party, akin to what is happening in the UK with the UK Independence Party.
I agree with you that the Democrat Party has become socialist but the country has also moved well to the left. There was a clear contrast and the country chose the socialist.
Who is this GOP establishment of whom you speak? Romney was not of the establishment. He won despite the fact he was supported by very few pundits. He won the nomination because he won every debate except the 2 in SC, was the best organized, and none of his opponents was remotely electable. Republicans and conservatives failed to rally around him in sufficient numbers to defeat a well organized incumbency supported by those who largely shape the culture – the media, academia and the entertainment industry.
Democrats will continue to win if Republicans and conservatives spend more time attacking their own rather than the socialists and if they stay home if the party’s nominee is not exactly what they want. Romney would have been an excellent president.
The problem with the RINO’s the GOP has begrudgingly given us the past 6 Presidential election cycles is they NEVER go for the jugular and continue the assault metaphorically speaking. Accompanied with well-founded, indisputable facts during debates, speeches and t.v. appearances, respectively.
My ‘Dream Team’ for years has been Jim DeMint and JC Watts.
I believe each would destroy their Democratic adversary.
Though with the Democrats having a compliant lapdog media.. it’ll always be a struggle.
Democrats will continue to win if Republicans and conservatives spend more time attacking their own
A conservative attacking a statist R is not attacking his/her own.
Romney would have given us smaller, more intelligent, less wasteful and a non-corrupt government. Cut Cap and Balance. So thanks for proving my point. And nice name. Suits you.
No, the perfect candidate would be whoever the Democrats nominate. That is the only candidate who would be considered acceptable to the elites in the country. It would be the ultimate in “reaching across the aisle”. And would be the only candidate who would be immune to the savage media smear attacks Republicans regularly face.
Republicans? That political party died back in Nov. 6 2012 What we have now is the democrat party with republican as their name.
Screw both parties losers and tyrants one and the same.
Nothing but career politicians and clowns.
If we keep running out-sourcing queens for president we will keep on losing.
If we keep confusing ‘pastor in chief’ for ‘commander in chief’ we will keep losing.
Proudly campaigning against marriage is all very fine but you guys are wrecking my portfolio with this bs.
Whatever happened to freedom of choice? If neither conservatives nor liberals believe in freedom we are in trouble.
Hilarious. How about Lindsay Graham?
As for J.C. Watts — being black means nothing if you’re not a Democrat. Michael Steele lost in his home state, right?
I’m not sure I see the problem. Republican’s keep nominating lite Democrats and Democrats keep winning. Seems to me the Republicans should be happy.
On the other hand, those of us who believe the country has been spending like a drunk sailor for decades and needs to stop yesterday, have good reason to be unhappy.
It took about 30 seconds to realize that this was heavy satire and that Mr. Fleming is mocking those who think Romney failed because he was too far to the right.. I don’t believe that many conservatives think so, and I don’t agree with his apparent point that we should have gone harder toward core Republican principles.
The lesson that we should take from this election and that of 2008 is that our campaign should not be EDUCATIONAL. You don’t have a hope in hell of converting the undecided voters – the ones you really need, by extolling the merits of Free Enterprise and thr inviolability of the Constutution. “Yah,yah,yah! I’ve heard all that!”. These are people who vote on a gut-feeling of what will best for their immediate future and the country’s. You have to convince them that voting for your opponent woud be a disaster. Simply put: you need to scare them into voting for your man. And the GOP made a big effort not to do so.
The Democrats got it right. They scared the swing vuters into believing that Romney is a greedy heartless radical who would destroy their efforts to make life better for the little guys. Romney and the Libertarians should have been in attack mode, citing the egregious statist acts of this Administration, asking them openly, loudly, and insistently why the electorate should not conclude that their purpose was to “transform” America into a Socialist Republic on the order of France, Greece, Cuba and China. It would not be wild- eyed or venomous. It would be putting the “Leftists” and their servile propagandists off balance, on the defensive, and turning the spotlight on gthe serious threat they represent.
Ron Radosh and other conservative intellectuals would seek a “change of culture”. The culture is already there. The lesson of this election is that you need a strong voice to make clear, not whst we already are, but what these foul Doctrinaire Socialist are agressively. perpetrating and their inevitable destructive consequences. I’m scared. you’re scared. 55% of Americans need to be scared – NOT re-educated.
Thanks for confirming this point. If any Democrat strategists ever find themselves out of work, they would certainly be qualified for any position requiring sheep herding experience. Young women fled, Mexicans ran, and Blacks bolted from anything Romney.
Fortunately, the Dems have to nominate someone in ’16 and even if they picked Snow White, a campaign dedicated to defeating her would show seven dwarfs at a health clinic awaiting their penicillin shots to rid them of STDs courtesy of Snowy herself. The next election must include digging up all dirt on the opponent and creatively displaying it for the “sheep” to absorb. By creative, I mean lie if you have to. They did (woman with cancer) and it worked. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Get in the gutter with them and kick their commie butts.
Every Body is wrong except Mark Thiessen –”lets go over the fiscal cliff”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-lets-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff/2012/11/19/be05bc72-3251-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html
The idiots OR YOU IDIOTS! who voted for this need to pay for it-as will the rest of “US”
So do the MATH (some of you -in certain zip codes – have herd of MATH?) The Math will kick in eventually and with an idiot Santa Clause -at 1600 & another running the FED-RESV-printing money for a FIAT CURRENCY (SEE BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE 1944- OPERATIVE 1958) THE CLIFF is only the first part of the FISCAL ABYSS!!.
The abyss is a ways out, I won’t live to see it, but you youngsters in your 30′s 40′s 50′s you will have a lot of fun running those BOZOS to ground. I can just imagine stalking the politicians of that day night and day seeking payback for screwing the entire county & the world along with it.
The political class of the 1930′s got away with their incompetence (read the Forgotten Man” Amity Shlaes) – oh no no no not this time.
Cheers “U” poor souls and check your “6″
100% correct.
Finally–someone who gets it!
Christie-Huntsman 2016!!
Unless Colin Powell is available–with Charlie Crist as his VP candidate conservatives would finally re-capture the White House!!!
/obvious sarcasm tag, since a lot of posters missed the obvious but un-tagged sarcasm of the original article
ugh!
What a ridiculous article. I can hardly believe a so-called conservative site would publish such a poorly thought out article. Basically you are saying Republicans should just run Democrats. What the hell. Why not just give up completely?
On second thought, that’s a good idea. When people such as this author start to think people like Romney and McCain are right wing, we have swung so far left as to be completely irreconcilable.
yes – it’s called satire which you apparently don’t recognize. Reactivate your sense of humor button please.
What a ridiculous article is right. Mitt Romney fought for the Palestinian jihadists in the December 10, 2011 Iowa debate and on our national platform writing committee. Romney was solidly in support of the jihadists. Why do you think Romney supported Obama’s foreign policy and was silent on Benghazi? Worthless! So is the Republican party Establishment.
Seriously – John McCain was the choice of the MSM – a moderate with no true conservative or right wing support – Mitt Romney was a much better choice than Obama but he is not right wing or very conservative. What the Republican party needs to do is go totally conservative – it wins every time. Neither of these guys were conservative or right wing.
I have a better idea: Let the voters suffer until they finally figure out that electing Democrats is what is causing all the misery.
Heh. Some conservatives wouldn’t know a joke if it jumped up and bit them on the …
…and you wonder why the left thinks of you as the stoopid party?
Have you ever heard of satire? Irony? Humor?
Wow, I’m agreeing with Warren! There’s a first for everything, I guess.
What a stupid article. A moderate Republican party will insure its defeat for generations. All the way right leaning folks(translation:pro life, pro God, pro gun, and hater of anything Obama) will never embrace this. Hopefully they will embrace a Ron Paul like Republican. But then, that unlikely as well.
Either way Repos are lost for at least 1 generation, or until they nominate a candidate that embraces liberty , sound money, and hates global occupation.
Goodbye GOP
The patron saint of Chicago politics said it: “Nice guys finish last” – Leo Durocher
So you offered us McCain and Mittens. And they were crushed by the passion, and the venom, of the machine. As for living on as what the Brits call “The Loyal Opposition”, fuggedaboutdit.
Then who will assume that role? May I suggest a marriage of the passion of the Tea Party to the principles and the discipline of the Libertarians? But first the former must rid itself of the hypocrites and fools that contributed to the demise of the Republicans.
How can you ask government to regulate who shall marry, or whether a pregnancy shall be carried to term, and not expect to get the nanny state of the elitist Bloombergs of the world? Abdicate if you will, the admonishing of your daughters to keep their legs together, and you will find your sons are told to put down that Big Mac. Ask government to intrude into bedrooms, but do not deny that it will tell you where and with whom your children will be schooled.
The outlier, to use a now popular phrase, was Reagan. But did any Republican since he show the cajones to tell Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”? The Libertarians have a fighter in Ron Paul, but his time has past. Who within the Tea Party has shown the consistency to resist the darker sides of what passes for humanity, the Obama statists, heirs to their fellow Socialists, Marx, Stalin, and Hitler?
So to you who bemoan yesterday’s results, I say gather your resolve for tomorrow’s opportunities. Offer not candidates who, like Perot, say “I ran a business” nor compromised combatants like Gingrich who pushed back at the media or Christie that pushed back at the avarice of the educational establishment. Find instead a Reagan for our time, one who combines courage with principle. Then this nation will see an opposition worthy of its trust.
Tom Beebe
November 7, 2012
Apples and oranges.
This nation was founded to protect life as an unalienable right, to be protected from infringement by others … so how we define when a life is worthy of such protection is within the proper purview of the Federal government.
The availability of Big Macs and soda sizes … and all the other nanny-state intrusions that those like Mayor Bloomin’ consider necessary for the public good … go well beyond the legitimate mission of government, to impose the particular socio-economic morality of those with access to power.
It is prudent to support the former, but oppose the latter, if we truly value life and liberty.
The sad thing is, other than Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (and I guess Herman Cain before he dropped out), Romney pretty much was the most right wing of all the ones in the race. Romney was constantly attacked and vilified for being a capitalist, and that was in the primary by Gingrich and company.
Republicans needs to start defending free markets and capitalism. It’s been a losing war. The USSR might have fallen, but socialism has won in Western Europe and most of the world.
“The USSR might have fallen, but socialism has won in Western Europe and most of the world.”
Very praise-worthy quote that should be shared on other sites.
Obviously, sir, you are living on a high irony diet.
Before now, I thought we only had one problem: A country careening head-first into socialism…now I see we have a second problem: A blog filled with conservatives who don’t recognize SATIRE.
Careful now, the Republican Party leadership (if it can be called that) is just stupid enough to consider your “advice” as worthy of being followed.
I suppose Rick Santorum will be the next Republican nominee since thhe normal order succession for the GOP is to promote the loser from 4 yrs ago.
I’m noticing silence from moderate minorities when hearing blatant accusations that the Republican party is the party of old, white men. Democrats will hammer this theme everyday in all media for the next 4 yrs and if the Repubs don’t fight back, they will eventually lose 99% of non-white voters.
The next candidate will be held to an extremely high standard by both sides, possibly too high to produce a decent field after seeing the cannibalism in 2008 and 2012. The party is fractured. Democrats are playing Republicans like fiddles. The leadership has failed and is failing.
I knew Romney was not going to represent me in elected, yet I pulled the lever against Obama. I’m tired of this dance and won’t be playing the Republican game in 2016.
I’m very pessimistic. Democrats control the headlines and the daily message and I’m not sure a better candidate and stance would have helped. Too many people are misinformed.
I see the republicans going full tilt social con, and 40 years of democrats pious faces on tv is what i see. And yes I know this is satire strongly but it reeks of denial to me.
This Super Squish actually sounds a lot like Jon Huntsman or Charlie Crist. What a presidential ticket that would be! Feeling sick at the stomach just contemplating it.
“Republicans need to stop nominating right-wing extremists like John McCain and Mitt Romney.”
Yeah, yeah, I know. Satire. BUT. Republicans need to stop nominating “It’s his turn” and start nominating people who might win. (If, of course, they can field any…).
Regards,
Disgusted by the same old same old.
I may go back to voting for definite can’t-wins, like the Libertarians, in protest.
McCain and Romney, right wing conservatives? Somebody must have been hitting the Obama “Kool Aid” pretty hard to come up with that one. Both of those guys were the most liberal of all the primary candidates. There is going to be a very rude awakening shortly, the socialist here are running out of other peoples money. The spending is going to stop, when that happens Obama and the rest of the liberals are not going to look so good.
The Republican Party has already moved to far to the left for my thinking. I voted for Romney, only because he was the lesser of the two evils.
What? Sir, you’re dead wrong. I can’t believe this even appeared on this website. The difference between us and democrats are such little things as _PRINCIPLES_. We _stand_ for what we believe in, because, well, that’s what we believe in. Are you suggesting abandoning our beliefs to get elected? Why? I am an immigrant in the state of Massachussetts and I have faith in the GOP for crying out loud. I do vote! Don’t abandon me, let’s get real conservatives into the race!!
McCain and Romney… the RINO brothers.
Mr. Burns, I left you a reply in the Identity Politics is evil thread.
But If I may interject myself in here, and I think Jeanette has been doing a fantastic job (Im going to steal some of your language for my future engagements Jeannette!) here of explaining Christian so-cons positions.
But I want to direct a question at you…and it has to do with your radical secularism interpretation of the Establishment Clause (and the doctrine of Incorportation). What Im getting at is that you agnostic and atheist libertarians are gung ho is silencing Christian speech in schools for instance, or suing towns for Nativity displays, or forcing the removal of Crosses from public property. This doesnt endear Christians to you. Christians have rights too, you know. Terrorizing school kids and threatening them when they give their valedictorian speeches and mention God or Jesus or their Christian faith, is absolutely abominable. This unfortunately is not just the work of Marxists, but Godless libertarians as well. To sit here a listen to you scold me and Christians for infringing upon your rights, is downright offensive. It’s like listening to an Saudi Salafist Islamist lecture on religious tolerance.
Small limited Federal government was created by devout Christians in the first place. The Establishment Clause was a Federalism provision, a limitation on the Federal Government, not a General Principle of governmance. And certainly not the radical secularist interpretation of it as a Wall of Separation. Im a secularist myself, just not a radical secularist. I support the separation of ORGANIZATIONS, Church and State….not the Separation of Religioin and Governance, ie 2000 years of Christian and before that Jewish experience and philosophy in those traditions helping to inform policy and legislation, the proper organization of society and government and the purpose of government. Certainly lay Christian citizens should have the right to express themselves freely in the institutions (like prayers before High School football games), this is not an Establishment of Relgiion, but rather citizens, a vast majority of which are Christians) expressing themselves freely within institutions of society.
Hope that makes sense. Like Jeannette, I can only keep long windedly repeating these things over and over again and hope something penetrates, ocassionally.
Thanks! I manage to be a little more succinct in Yahoo, but I think pjmedia posters can handle multiple paragraphs. One caveat: before Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Protestantism was allowed in public schools, but Catholics had to open parochial ones in order to not be “mistaught” Christianity. If we ever do get back to having a Christian nation, I hope Protestants will remember to make room for Catholicism.
The main thing I’d like for the low-tax hedonists to ponder: Modern-day ideas about what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior goes against every successful civilization we’ve had. All of a sudden about 50 years ago, some goofy hippies decided sexual pleasure was not only an acceptable primary pursuit, but that it needed to be enshrined into law; it’s like they thought they were a Magisterium or something. It is of course against most every sensible denomination of Christianity. But we also think that everyone’s rights are endowed by a Creator and therefore cannot be taken away by the state, that redistributionism is theft, and that theft is wrong. The nation is going to battle (ideological of course, and signs hint that maybe physical battle too at some point): it’s the Christians and those who think Christianity makes for a good, well-functioning society vs the atheists who have just as much disregard for God’s laws against theft (of property, votes, etc) as they do against our right to life no matter what size we are, or what our physical capabilities we have. You seem to want allies who have a Christian respect for human property, but not a Christian respect for life for the vulnerable, nor a Christian respect for human sexuality.
John McCain’s incessant rants as to how the US needs to bomb people, places and/or things do frighten many voters.
Polls have, for example, consistently shown that Americans oppose bombing or invading Syria. What does McCain do? He constantly tells the media that the US needs to immediately attack Syria and that the American government should be “ashamed” for not bombing it sooner.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate McCain joined some Bush administration officials in urging that the US and NATO intervene, on the Georgian side, in the then-ongoing war in South Ossetia. (In 2008, the Republic of Georgia launched a massive artillery attack on South Ossetian villages and Russian peacekeepers, triggering Russian intervention and a war that the Georgians lost. Badly.) McCain seemed oblivious to the fact that the Russian Federation, unlike Iraq, possessed massive quantities of nuclear and chemical weapons, modern air defenses, and anti-ship missiles that would have turned the Black Sea into a graveyard for American warships. In addition, Russia was and is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and therefore able to veto any Security Council resolution against it or authorizing Western intervention.
Is it any wonder that many Americans genuinely fear that, given the chance, McCain would implement his various calls for armed conflict with Iran, Syria, post-Quadaffi Libya, et cetera? Or that he might be just crazy enough to try, to quote the movie Dr. Strangelove, “nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Rooskies”?
For all his faults, John McCain understands that without freedom – and the respect for, and protection of, it by those charged with governance – the only sure peace is that of the grave.
He also understands that direct, timely, resolute, and DECISIVE action is called for to effectively protect freedom. Perhaps that is because he had a five-and-one-half-year “education” about the results when a nation does NOT exhibit these attributes in its foreign and defense policies.
As Mr. Reagan showed us, that does not necessarily mean shooting, if your resolve is considered credible. OTOH, the refusal to decisively engage tyrants allows them to shape the battlespace … and is how you get war without end.
Conservatives had better learn to fight “dirty”, disgustingly dirty. All you get by taking the “high” road is shot down.
do you have any examples of “Republicans taking the high road”? – I remember McCain telling that straw-haired lady that Obama was not an Arab back in 2008. Only one I can think of (and it’s pretty lame).
“Republicans need to stop nominating right-wing extremists like John McCain and Mitt Romney.”
Of course that’s silly. But they do need to nominate very hardline fiscal conservatives who won’t coddle the socons by paying lip service to their most extreme, least popular, and least defensible positions. The best the socons should hope for is the federal government won’t undermine them–and their ideals they should expect to have stand on their own merits.
It cuts a knee out from under the Democrats and would appeal to the libertarian middle and, of course, fiscal conservatives.
The other thing they could try is to out-Democrat the Democrats.
But then they won’t get my vote or the socons.
The best Christians can hope for is Heaven. Have you run the numbers? Do low-tax hedonists have enough votes without Christians, to win elections?
A West/Rubio ticket in 2016 may reverse the Democrats gains of the last 6 years
Jon Huntsman, I presume.
Thank you Frank J. Fleming for the satire & the laugh. The sad thing is The Stupid Party will take your column as gospel & do exactly as you say. Just one question. If McCain & Romney are far right extremists who exactly are the RINOs?/
At first, Frank, I thought you just kidding. I soon realized you’re serious. How funny. I hate to tell you, but McCain or Romney are far from right-wing, my confused friend. Neither are they conservatives. You should find another doctor, or at least get a second opinion on your meds.
Its satire people -you wow!!
hey, remember that time bishop romney ran for president and was caught totally off guard along with the entire repub party when he was landslided by barack obama?
and hey, remember that time grumpy mccain and that foolish woman ran for president and got community organized into a landslide by barack obama?
that was cool.
bwahahahaha
I’m assuming this article is meant to be sarcasm given that the author has written a book entitled “Obama: The Greatest President in the History of Everything.” Let’s get down to brass tacks here. Mitt Romney won a large number of Independents and Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008. He lost the election because much of the base stayed home this election just like they did when McCain was running. Why? I think it’s pretty obvious. I didn’t vote because Mitt Romney is at best a centrist and at worst left of center. Anyone who would call Romney or McCain extreme right wingers is either engaging in deception or is delusional. They ran someone who payed lip service to conservatives while having a voting record that was similar to Obama’s. He lied about this record during the primaries and even had homosexual activists working on his campaign. Romney must have had a lot of contempt for us or he thought we were a bunch of easily duped fools who would throw support at him. I knew he would go down in flames when he got the nomination.
The notion that the GOP needs to go heavily social conservative is backwards, and poster sinz54 even put up some numbers. Sinz is correct. Numbers don’t lie. For example, Pro gay marriage won and anti gay marriage propositions lost in all 4 states putting this on the ballot. Your premise (in science, a hypothesis) needs to be able to account for all of the data. Yours doesn’t. You dont’ get to ignore the inconvenient. One could conclude from this that the mood of the country is not headed for social conservatism. At least one who is paying attention would conclude this.
You, Fleming, can do poorly crafted satire all you like and still never actually hit the mark. The only people who agree with you are of the same wackadoodle ilk in this echo chamber. To be effective your attempt at satire needs to resonate with the wider GOP membership. Good luck with that.
hahahahahahahahaahahahaplop.
Exhibit. A,
Bitchezzzzzzzzzz.
We had 2 of them from this state: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. We’re finally rid of Snowe – but only because she retired. Her replacement isn’t any better. Angus King – a radical liberal who can’t get on the Demoncrat ticket so he always runs as an Independant.