Mitt Romney is not a consrvative. He is the latest in a long line of "MODERATE" GOP LOSERS: candidates essentially chosen by the gOP establishment because they are NOT conservative. But conservatives were going to be BLAMED for the results of Romney as President. Worse, Romney's "bipartisan" efforts as President would have been hard for the GOP to OPPOSE. That would likely have resulted in conservative ideas being shunted aside, as they were in Bush's second term. No It BENEFTIS conservatives that Romney lost, because he was not going to win with a conservative message. Romney was not gong to SELL "conservatism", as he did not during the campaign. Yes. Federal judges will hurt (assuming Romney's choices would have been much better) . But, otherwise, it is good for CONSERVATIVES--not for the country, of which I am ashamed--that Romney lost. That is why I originaly refused to support Romney, until Obama forced me to with his POLITICAL response to the death of 4 Americans in Libya.
Look at Romney's closing message. It was the usual GOP establishment "gool's gold" of "reaching across the aisle", and "bipartisanship". I actually thought Romney delivered this "message" fairly well in the final week, while Obama appeared mean spirited and petty. Nevertheless, it is the WRONG message, and the electin results again proved it. To win a Presidential electin, you have to SELL the idea that y;ou have guiding principles (even if you don't), and that you have a DIRECTION you will lead the country that is dieerent than the direction it headling (unless, (with the caveat that you have to SELL the idea that you CARE about the directin the country is heading, and that it is a directin that can mean IMPROVEMENT in peoople's lives). Reagan did this (in similar circumstances). Romney did not. Romney came across as an establishment, Wall St. guy who merely thinks he can MANAGE "Big Government" better than Obama (which Romney probably could, but if you want govenment to "solve' your problems, why not vote for the guy you KNOW believes in that?). Sure, Obama talks about 'reaching across the aisle", as politicians almost have to do, but Obama makes it clear that he expects HIS OPPONENTS to "reach across the aisle" to abandon their principles, while we proceed in the direction Obama wants. GOP: "moderates" get it WRONG when they believe that people "want' TRUE "bipartisanship". People may want you to "compromise", when it is a choice between that and ruining the country. But they want you to STAND for something. Romney did not lose because he was "too conservative". He lost because he did not stand for anything, which made it easy to target him as an out of touch, "rich WallSt. guy". Meanwhile, after the first debate, Romney simply refused to really criticize Obama--while Obama kept saying terrible things about Romney. That is the GOP estalbishment path to LOSING.
Notice that the "conservative' members of tghe GOP House WON. Sure, that may be mainly because conservatives control most of the country, in terms of AREA, while leftists are concentrated in urban areas. The GOP did not do so well in the Senate. But note that is NOT because of "Tea Party" candidates. Scott Brown ran as a Democrat in Massachusetts, and LOST, while the Tea Party brought him to vicotry in 2009 (or was it 10?). Senate candidates tend to be GOP establishment types, and they are unable to LEAD huge conservative victories. It ws the conservative Tea Party that gave tghe GOP a HUGE victory in the HOUSE in 2010, and so many state victories, and nOT the GOP estalbishment. WWhat the GOP establishment wants is for the Tea Party to support THEM, whle they ignore concerative principles (as Romney basically did, despite some liip service). It simply does not work . Since 1970,. from where have the BIG GOPP victories come? There was Nixon in 1972, but that was because Democrats went obviusly to the EXTREME LEFT (although it was to the RIGHT of where they are now, or at least McGovern would now be right in the CENTER of the Democratic Party). Nixon did not carry the GLP into control of Congress, or eally come close. The r3al gOP wave would come with CONSERVATIVE Reagan. Bush won big in 19888, but that was a LEGACY of Reagan. Bush promptly BETRAYED that legacy ("read my lips"), and lOST in 1992. Then, in 1994, thre ws the GINGRICH REVOLUTOIN based on aggressive conservative principles. That brought the GOP to full control of Congress. George W. Bush won too terms, BARELY , against ture STIFFS (Gore and Kerry) . Then the CONSERVATIVE Tea Party brought the GOP a MASSIVE victory in 2010. Again, the GOP promptly betrayed the Tea Party in many ways.
It was not conservatives who lost Romney this electin, although that will be the media/GOP establishment (LOSERS) "lesson". Romney should have won this elecitn EASILY . Norm MacDonald (sp?) won Virginia, with Tea Party support, by a LANDSLIEDE. Romney struggled. Chris Christie, thoiugh a strange type of "moderate", used bunt, Tea Party support and rhetoric to win BIG in New Jersey . Rmney did not even make an effort. Conservatives won governor and Seate races in Pennsylvania. Romney did not reall come close. Michigan? Some GOP progress. Romney not close. Wisconsin? Scott Walker won, TWICE, with Tea Party support. Romney not close. Susanna Martinez was elected GOP governor of NM in 2010, with Tea Party support. Romney not close. Sharon Angle, sabotaged by GOP estalbishment, could not beat Harry Reid (with his massive organizatin and union support) in Nevada. But Romney could not beat OBAMA in Nevada, deskpite what Obama said abouot Laas Vegas, and despite the lousy economy. When people have a MESSAGE, as the Tea Party did in 2010, they can carry peole with them who otherwise are ambivalent. And they discourage the oppositoin. I know. OBAMA was on the ballot tin 2012, with his massive organizatin. Conservatgives, in 2010, did not face Obama. That begs the questin. WHY was Obama so formidable? Is it not because Romney, and the GOP, were not BOLD enough to really take him on? Romney refused to take on Obama after the first debate (not "won" by Rmney, but LOST by Obama--a gift). This COST Romney the electin. Might he have lost worse if he took the battle to Obama? Sure. But eh could have WON. That is the problem with the GOP establishment. They have no principless, and they p"play" NOT TO LOSE. That MIGHT hhave worked this year, if Romney was not such a fundamentally weak candidate, but it is a recipe for LOSING. Romney snatched defeat from the jaws of vicotory: the fate of so many NFL teams which go into a 'prevent defense". The problme with the GOP establishment is that they go into a "prevent defense" when they are not even really ahead.
Notice that when conservatives lose, they are often sabotaged by GOP "moderrates". However, conservatives have rarely sabotaged gOP "moderates", even when they should. Even McCain got conservative support (not from me). In the case of Romney, he gt relatively ENTHUSIASTIC support from conservatives. Even I, reluctantly, came around this time, n the interest of the country and not being ashamed of my country (which, unfortunately, I now am). True, I did not support Romney in a way that would really say I "loved" him. But lkook at Mayor Bloomberg's "endorsement" of Obama, and CNN's "endorsement' of Obama. This last comes from my daughter, Kenda, who actualy reads CNN.com. I don't. She ays the editorial there for Obama was vastly INFERIOR to the one for Romney, and an embarrassment for Obama (talking about all of Obama's failures, but saying he needed to be given more time). No. Conservatives were strong for Romney. To the extent anyhone sabotaged Romney, it was MODERATE ChrisChristie (early Romney supporter, and major speaker iat GOP convention,), along with other moderates. You remember Democ arat governors when BUSH faced SORMS (not just Katrina) . They CRITICIZED Bush, even when they had little or no reason. Christie gave Obama a BEAR HU:G. Yu say govrnors should not be PARTISAN about a storm? I agree, at least in part, but DEMOCRATS will make partisan statements, even if they have to admit they got adequate Federal help. Did Christie have some kind of a GRIEVANCE against Romney? Not being chosen for VP, or considered seriuously enough? What about that strange speech at the GOP convention? Hey, I SAW the answer Christie gave about why he was so favorable toward Obama, and whether his support of Romney was strong. Christie have a LUKEWARM endorsement of Romney. Thos IMAGES of Christie being so ENTHUSIASTIC about Obama UNDERMINED that message of "bipartisanship" with which Romney ended his campaign. Christie made OBAMA look BIPARTISAN, while all Romney was doing was TALKING aoub it (while Obama was HAMMERING HIM). And what about all of those women GOP "moderates" who seemed willing to SAbOTAGE Romney just to 'purge" the GOP of "social conservatives"? GOP 'moderates" seemed more offended by the GOP platform than happy to have moderate Rmney at the top of the ticket. No. It is ironic, but Rmoney was SABOTAGED by GOP moderates.
Yes, God seemed to be agasint Romney . A hurricane distracted from, and detracted from, the GOP convention (a rather pathetic attempt to make Romney "likable", instead of presenting a real message agaisnt Obama). Then Sandy provided Obama a basketball-type "timeout", while Christie SABOTAGED Romney. No. It is NOT that Obama "looked Presidential". It is that Romney's MOMENTAUM was INTRRUPTED--partly because Romney was unable to think of some BOD step to keep himself from being INVISIBLE during the Sandy "suspensin" of politics. Impossible situatin for Romney? Maybe so. But then he resumed his campaing with BIPARTISANSHIP. No real chance. No message, and no bloldness, spells defeat. That is what Romney brought on himself, evven after the GIFT of the first debate. It is like Gingrich backing off after DEFEATING Romney in earlier debatges, letting Romney control the decisive debates in Florida. Yu don't defeat the man with ADVANTAGES by being that timid.
Christie. I don't know if he wants to be Presdient. But he never will be. No. It does not really bother me that much that Christie sabotaged Romoney, as I am not that unhappy that Romney lost. But, to me, Christie showed his true colors. At the GOP coonventino, Christie showed he was realy incapble of giving a natinal conservative message. Then his over-enghusiastic response to Obama showed that Christie cannot be trusted to avoid the GOP moderate curse of cozying up to leftists (more than necessary), and trashing conservatives. I can't see the GOP ever nominating Christie. It is not like HE is so very LIKABLE. Tthis elecitn not only finished Romney. Christie, R.I.P.
Whre is the LEADER conservatives (who cares about the GOP, per se) need? I don't know Marco Rubio? Too much "politics as usual" for me, but he may be the fastest rising star. Bobby Jindal jsut never gets any tractin on a natinal level. I like Sarah Palin, but the left appears to have made it hard for her to get out of the box into which she has been placed. Paul Ryan? Forget it. He could not even deliber Wisconsin. Yes. There are some GOP governors. But no one has come forth as a LEADER. Note that Ronald Reagan had come forth as a CONSERVATIVE LEADER as early as 1968, when he made a late challenge to Nixon. And Reagan had given a great speech for Goldwather. Then Reagan became governor of California Pont is that he was OUT THRE on the natinal stage. yes, it is too much to expect for a "leader" to "emerge" the DAY after a losing elecitn. But that isses the point. A LEADER shuold have emerged DURING THE ELECTIN, or between 2010 and 2012. Did anyone IMPORESS yu at the GOP conventin? Me either. Ryan wasn't bad, not wasn't that impressive either. Again, Marco Rubio was not like REeagan: IMPRESSING everybody with how he made the conserative case, or the case for Romney . Again, itis not like Romney blew out Obama in Florida. Yet, Rubio may have been about the best I saw, during the recent elecitn, at making the GOP case. Problem: Rbuio seemed to be moving as fast as he can to NO PRINCIPLLES. From a "Tea Party favorite", Rubio has moved faseter than anybody I have ever seen toward learning the GOP "moderate" "lesson" of SAYING NOTHING. That is not the way Reagan did it. No. I despair to say it, but I still don't see a CONSERVATIVE LEADER emerging either out of this electin, or out of 2010 (when one really should have started to emerge). The Tea Party came from the gound up, with "leaders" like Sarah Palin, wihout really "creatnnig' an emerging NATIONAL conservative leader. The troops have been there. The leder has not been there, and he or she still is not. Maybe one will emerge in the next two eyars. Maybe not. None emerged after 2008, which is why we ended up with a weak Mitt Romney "taking his turn" as the GOP establishment candidate.
Notice that I was right, as usual. No, I was rong about my predicitn--which should have been corretct---that the economy would cause Obama to LOSE. My acuracy has therefore fallen to 99.8% from 99.9%. No. I was not as stupid as DickMorris, Rush Limbaugh and the rst: predictng a Romney "landslide", based on my opwn analysis of POLLS (obviuslyl an incorrect analysis) . But I did get the result wrong. Romney would have done well to heed my advice and IGNORE POLLS, and instead go out and WIN the electin But where I was right is when I told you that ANY candidate who wins the popullar vote by at least close to 2% will WIN the electoral vote. Obama won the poular vote by more than 2%. I that situ;atin, it is STUPID to suggest htat Romney could have "won"if only he had done things diifferently in OHIO, and a few oterr swing states he lost by relatively few votes. As I told you, this idea of winning ONLY the RIGHT states is a terrible delusion. You need a STRATEGY to SELL YOURSLEF, and your ideas, to a MAJORITY of the American people .. Th "swing states" willl take care of themselves. No, I am not saying to be stuid, and concede the "swing states" to a candidate concentrating on them. But a candidate for President needs to go into an elecitn with the idea of CONVINCING people across the country that you are the right candidate. Thus, Obama became COMPETITIVVE in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and so many other states. Sure. As I stated, Obama was not stupid about it. He did not "compete" for TEXAS. But the GOP can't continue to limit itself to this NARROW path to the White House, on the theory that they need to figure out how to win just enough states to get to 270. The GOP needs to CONVINCE THE PEOPLE IN GENERAL. That is how you beomce competitive in more places. The GOP is in control in more AREA, but they can't "concede" HALF of the country (Romney's 47%) to the oppositoin as part of the campaign. The BEST you can do, ding that, is George W. Gush's narrow wins. The Tea Party helped the GOP sell itself in 2010, but the GOP had NO MESSAGE in 20012 (back to the Geeorge W. Bush model, only probably worse).
You will hear the media, and the GOP estalbishment, say how the GOP has to "moderate to win natinal elections. ignore it. That is how the GLP loses elections What the GOP has to do is SELL itself as a party whic knows how to LEAD. That means STANDING for something, and actually dong things when you have th echance (as the GOP House did not do, atlhoguh the members got re--elected anyway as a residual ffect of 2010). So long as the GOP does not stand for much of anything, except a "tax pledge" they can't even seem to defend, then they are giving all of those peole DPENDENT on government no reason to vote GOP. That was Rmney's real prolbme: He was a resaonble vote for people really unhappy with Obama, but he really gave other peole no real erason to vote for him--as distinguished from gong with Obama's BRIBES and THREATS (as to what would happen to thm under Romney).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). Oh. Will GOOP House suddentlly CAVE on its principles becasue Obama beat Romney? WhY? GoP House WON their electins (in general). Even Romney barely lost. Why sould GOP House suddently "cave" on "taxing the rich", and all of the ret? Unfortunatelyl, what yu can expect are SHAM "bipartisan" "cmpromises", where GOP politicians continue their stealth endorsement of Big Government and government spenidng. But the GOP can hardly afford to abandon the only victories they had, and have House members go back on what got tTHEM elected.