My Prediction if Romney Loses

[Gipper]

I hope this spells the END of the Republican party. The R's need to fold up their tent and go away.

What do you suggest for saving the RNC? Let me guess... They should go back to being the party of Democrat Lite.

Dem Lite is EXACTLY what he is suggesting. Somehow he thinks that works and is good for the country.

 

[GenSeneca]

Dem Lite is EXACTLY what he is suggesting. Somehow he thinks that works and is good for the country.

How does he expect the R's to out democrat the democrats?

Democrats: If you vote for us, we'll give you free birth control pills, condoms, and coupons for free abortions should you ever get punished with a baby.

Republican: Not only will we give you all that free shit too, we'll actually PAY you to take BC pills and have abortions!

 

[Pandora]

How does he expect the R's to out democrat the democrats?

Democrats: If you vote for us, we'll give you free birth control pills, condoms, and coupons for free abortions should you ever get punished with a baby.

Republican: Not only will we give you all that free shit too, we'll actually PAY you to take BC pills and have abortions!

You sound like Rush did today



I think that the only way the republicans will get those voters is to either promises them they will never have to work again or figure out a way to convince them that working is not a bad thing.

 

[BigRob]

What is the R Party without the conservatives? I will answer my own question....it is a nothing party and only slightly different from the D Party (really commies). Of course, your suggestion ironically is EXACTLY what the check pants establishment R's want and have tried to accomplish since Reagan left the scene. After two Bushs (who held nothing but disdain for conservatives) and their failed progressive presidencies, and progressive losers Dole, McCain, and Romney, you would think one would learn.

I dispute your opinion that Romney lurched to the right (his comment that he is 'severely conservative' at CPAC was too funny and not believable). It is well known that Romney is a moderate progressive and yet, the conservatives still voted for him as a lesser of two evils. If the R party turns it's back on conservatives, the party dies....and it should.

Romney ran a weak campaign against a sitting POTUS who was a sitting duck. BO was ready for a knockout even more so than the Peanut Farmer and Mitt couldn't get the job done....BECAUSE HE WAS TOO MODERATE.

If conservatives all voted for Mitt Romney as the "lesser of two evils" then why did he lose? It is because he lost the middle. So, why did he lose the middle? I don't think it is because he was not conservative enough.

Conservatives nominated Senate candidates in multiple states and got hammered by the electorate for it -- essentially costing the R's the Senate. They were certainly conservative enough -- so why did they lose?

 

[Pandora]

If conservatives all voted for Mitt Romney as the "lesser of two evils" then why did he lose? It is because he lost the middle. So, why did he lose the middle? I don't think it is because he was not conservative enough.

Conservatives nominated Senate candidates in multiple states and got hammered by the electorate for it -- essentially costing the R's the Senate. They were certainly conservative enough -- so why did they lose?

I don’t know for sure if it is true but today I heard a report that 2 million less republicans voted in this election than voted in the last one. I figure the evangelicals didn’t want to vote for the Mormon

 

[BigRob]

I hope this spells the END of the Republican party. The R's need to fold up their tent and go away.

What do you suggest for saving the RNC? Let me guess... They should go back to being the party of Democrat Lite.

No, to save the RNC we need to stop pretending that the Republican Party is not a big tent party. We need to tone down the rhetoric, stop putting "leaders" forward who are complete idiots and cannot even back up sound positions and ideology.

We can stand on principles, compromise when we can without going against those principles, and put forth leaders that can articulate a clear vision in an intelligent manner. That is what Ronald Reagan did.

Look at Missouri, does anyone really think that Todd Akin was the best choice for Senate that Republicans could come up with? He is a joke. John Brunner would have coasted to victory in that race, and instead, we keep a D in the seat.

We ought to accept that a Republican in Maine is not going to be the same as a Republican in Texas -- but there will be plenty of shared values, and we don't have to agree on every issue.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, to save the RNC we need to stop pretending that the Republican Party is not a big tent party.

That comes from the Dems and their allies in the media demonizing anything and anyone who doesn't tow their party line.

We need to tone down the rhetoric,

Let's see... Republicans want dirty air, dirty water, oceans covered in oil spills, they want the sick and elderly to die in the streets, disabled children to fend for themselves, they want to ban all forms of birth control and abortions (even in cases of rape and incest), they want to abolish SS Medicaid/Medicare, they want to let Wall Street and the 1% run the government to steal from the 99%.... Those are all examples of Leftist "rhetoric" just from this election - Republicans would have to drastically ratchet up their rhetoric to reach that level of libelous hatefilled drivel.

stop putting "leaders" forward who are complete idiots and cannot even back up sound positions and ideology.

Like Romney? McCain? Bush? Dole? The Republican establishment is the miserable failure.

We can stand on principles,

What principles would those be? Until the advent of the Tea Party, the R's were perfectly happy being Demlite. They only pretended to support small government, lower taxes, and free markets because the Tea Party became a political force that challenged the party in primary elections. I am under no illusions that the country club republicans actually support any of that stuff, they're all big government statists.

compromise when we can without going against those principles, and put forth leaders that can articulate a clear vision in an intelligent manner. That is what Ronald Reagan did.

Reagan is dead and, hopefully, so is the Republican party.

 

[BigRob]

That comes from the Dems and their allies in the media demonizing anything and anyone who doesn't tow their party line.

No it doesn't. It comes from a large chunk of moderate Republicans too.

Let's see... Republicans want dirty air, dirty water, oceans covered in oil spills, they want the sick and elderly to die in the streets, disabled children to fend for themselves, they want to ban all forms of birth control and abortions (even in cases of rape and incest), they want to abolish SS Medicaid/Medicare, they want to let Wall Street and the 1% run the government to steal from the 99%.... Those are all examples of Leftist "rhetoric" just from this election - Republicans would have to drastically ratchet up their rhetoric to reach that level of libelous hatefilled drivel.

I'm not going to defend leftist rhetoric.

Like Romney? McCain? Bush? Dole? The Republican establishment is the miserable failure.

Oh, we need a "real conservative" -- like who? Bachmann? Santorum? Who? Do you really think they would have done nearly as well as Romney?

What principles would those be? Until the advent of the Tea Party, the R's were perfectly happy being Demlite. They only pretended to support small government, lower taxes, and free markets because the Tea Party became a political force that challenged the party in primary elections. I am under no illusions that the country club republicans actually support any of that stuff, they're all big government statists.


Reagan is dead and, hopefully, so is the Republican party.

Ok -- let it die -- enjoy unanimous D government.

 

[Cruella]

Reagan is dead and, hopefully, so is the Republican party.

You might be right.

Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party

Conservative leaders on Wednesday lashed out at Mitt Romney, saying his attempts to paint himself as a centrist and hide his principles cost him the presidency.

They vowed to wage a war to put the Tea Party in charge of the Republican Party by the time it nominates its next presidential candidate.

“The battle to take over the Republican Party begins today and the failed Republican leadership should resign,” said Richard Viguerie, a top activist and chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

He said the lesson on Romney’s loss to President Obama on Tuesday is that the GOP must “never again” nominate a “a big government established conservative for president.”

 

[GenSeneca]

Ok -- let it die -- enjoy unanimous D government.

It beats the facade of a two party system where the difference between the parties is all about style and not substance.

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh, we need a "real conservative" -- like who? Bachmann? Santorum? Who? Do you really think they would have done nearly as well as Romney?

Are there any "conservatives" who aren't Collectivists?

 

[Openmind]

It is and it is not -- Romney had to lurch so far to the right in order to even secure the nomination (due to the far right conservative base) that coming back the center was just about impossible for anyone to believe.

Exactly! The tea party forced Romney (who wasn't a bad candidate, and certainly the best you had this year!) to twist himself into a pretzle. . .I believe I heard someplace (don't remember where, but it doesn't come from me) that after the contortions you forced Romney to engage in, he will have a second career as a star contortionist at Cirque du soleil!

And, obviously, when he got twisted soooo far to the extreme Right by the hyper religious and the tea party, he had NO CHANCE to be elected! He would have had no vote either from the Left or from Independents!
Then. . .when his campaign realized that, and AFTER it was too late for the tea party to remove their endorsement of Romney, he had to make a quick (and not very honest) move toward the middle, to try to at least get the independents!

Because of that, he never looked like a strong leader, he never looked like a man with integrity, and he never looked honest. He looked like a wishy washy guy with no principles and no vision. . .like a mouth piece, only interested in making his wife the White House hostess.

Too bad for you Christie wouldn't run this time. HE would not have let the tea party and the hyper religious zombies force him into a shape that was not his . . .(and I'm not referring to his weight! LOL!). He would have been respected (if not liked!) for his straight talk, his strength, and his integrity.

It is not your candidates that need to change. . .it is the extreme edge of your party, unless you want to lose the REAL Republicans who will more easily move to the Independents!

 

[BigRob]

Are there any "conservatives" who aren't Collectivists?

You tell me -- if you could choose anyone for President -- who would it be?

 

[Gipper]

You tell me -- if you could choose anyone for President -- who would it be?

Of the candidates who ran? That is easy. Ron Paul.

Conservatives did vote for Mitt, but their numbers are not high enough to win the election for him. Plus he failed to support the Tea Party, so many of their members abandoned him in his typical idiotic effort to attract moderate voters....what a fool....but you agree with his strategy.

As Zero Hedge stated, had Mitt gone after the libertarian vote he might have won, but he choose to insult them. Many libertarians refused to vote or voted to someone other than Mitt.

Mitt ran a shitty campaign (but I suspect he ran the kind of campaign you prefer). He refused to go after BO hard on important issues like Bengazi, Fast & Furious, deficit spending, economy, etc. He needed to hammer home the problems we face thanks to BO and do it in dramatic fashion. And he failed to realize the MSM was out to destroy him. He needed to attack BO and the MSM concisely and consistently.

He thought he could win since the economy is so bad. He thought wrong.

You think Romney ran a good campaign, but was hurt by a lurch to the right to win the nomination. I dispute this completely. It is nonsense.

 

[Gipper]

Are there any "conservatives" who aren't Collectivists?

Yes there are.

Big Rob is not a conservative. He is a Neo-con.

The differences between Neo-Cons and genuine Conservatives are broad and deep. A genuine Conservative believes in the following:
- individual liberty
- condemns collectivism harshly
- limited government
- free market capitalism
- ending the Kleptocracy
- ending the the warfare and welfare state
- returning to the rule of law
- ending deficit spending
- and much more....

The Neo-Con refuses to accept these positions. This from the great Thomas DiLorenzo...on the book Forgotten Conservatives in American History...

In their new book, Forgotten Conservatives in American History, Brion McClanahan and the great Clyde Wilson discuss how the Machiavellian-minded connivers and plotters known as "neoconservatives" weaseled their way into the Reagan administration and hence "became the accepted, respectable Right in American discourse . . ." Genuine conservatives, which during the ‘60s and ‘70s included traditionalists, libertarians, anti-communists, and other opponents of leftism, "became an irrelevant and possibly dangerous fringe, disdained by all decent people. . . " This latter category would include most readers of LewRockwell.com and certainly all the writers.
The "new conservatives" who now run the Republican Party and much of the Democratic Party as well, are a peculiar bunch. The leading lights of "neoconservatism" during the Reagan years "were Trotskyites who had replaced their hereditary agenda of global socialist revolution with one of a global revolution of ‘democratic capitalism.’ Unashamedly embracing Machiavellian tactics against opponents and against the American people, they gloried in ‘big government’ and fervently planned to project American armed force around the world, the national debt be damned." None of this "could be considered a "conservative" agenda . . .", they write.
The real focus of Forgotten Conservatives in American History is the ideas of sixteen or so historical figures who espoused genuinely American, conservative ideas, as opposed to the weird and creepy Eastern European totalitarian schemes of the "respectable" neoconservatives . These men include John Taylor of Caroline, James Fenimore Cooper, Condy Raguet, President John Tyler, Abel Upshur, Grover Cleveland, William Graham Sumner, H.L. Mencken, Mel Bradford, and others. All of these men could have been listed as former LewRockwell.com columnists had the Web site been around in some published form since the early nineteenth century.
What do these historical figures have in common? They all share, to some degree, a belief in genuine American conservatism as defined by McClanahan and Wilson (drawing on the late Russell Kirk). This includes avoiding burdening future generations with government debt; honoring the Constitution; remembering the founders’ warnings about "entangling alliances" with foreigners; valuing "voluntary community" and "a larger sphere for private society, and a smaller sphere for government, especially the federal government"; opposition to "multiculturalism" or "an enforced monolithic non-culture"; and belief in the necessity of free markets and opposition to corporate welfare and other forms of neo-mercantilism.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo240.html