Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The extreme right of the conservative base is starting to weigh in on the GOP's devastating loss: See, we told you that Mitt Romney was too moderate   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 157
    More: Unlikely, Mitt Romney, GOP, Bob Vander Plaats, human beings, Federalist Society, moderates, Ted Cruz, John McCain  
•       •       •

2947 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-20 09:48:24 AM  
Starting?
 
2012-11-20 10:03:10 AM  
Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.
 
2012-11-20 10:03:54 AM  

unlikely: Starting?


That's what I cam here to say. They started going berserk at about 10pm (CST) a couple of weeks ago.
 
2012-11-20 10:15:37 AM  
DO IT
 
2012-11-20 10:17:11 AM  
The Republican party is considerably more moderate than the conservatives I know.
 
2012-11-20 10:18:15 AM  
And then, inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: 'Don't show any contrasts. Don't rock the boat.' So by the third debate, I'm pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama."


Shouldn't that be Freedom-kissed?
 
2012-11-20 10:18:17 AM  
Keep moving further to the extreme fringe. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-11-20 10:19:19 AM  
After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney's loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party's losses in November.

they are PARTLY to blame, not completely or solely to blame. the GOP lost to a combination of reasons, everything from contempt towards 47% of voters to class warfare to an extreme right wing religious theocratic philosophies. then there was the exceptionally bad campaign organization Romney put together. plenty of blame to go around on this issue...and it'd would do the GOP a disservice to pin all the blame on ONE faction within the Republican party.

that said, the GOP does have a problem with their theocrats. they need to reign in the religious folks if they plan on climbing out of the hole they've dug for the Republican party.
 
2012-11-20 10:19:37 AM  
That's it, I'm voting for Obama.
 
2012-11-20 10:20:27 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


You know. People who have jobs.
 
2012-11-20 10:20:46 AM  
psychsurvivor2.files.wordpress.com

"He lost because he wasn't Conservative enough."
 
2012-11-20 10:21:48 AM  

Weaver95: After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney's loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party's losses in November.

they are PARTLY to blame, not completely or solely to blame. the GOP lost to a combination of reasons, everything from contempt towards 47% of voters to class warfare to an extreme right wing religious theocratic philosophies. then there was the exceptionally bad campaign organization Romney put together. plenty of blame to go around on this issue...and it'd would do the GOP a disservice to pin all the blame on ONE faction within the Republican party.

that said, the GOP does have a problem with their theocrats. they need to reign in the religious folks if they plan on climbing out of the hole they've dug for the Republican party.


Then they have to be willing to lose for a couple years, like a baseball team rebuilding.
 
2012-11-20 10:22:32 AM  
Geez, you'd think some of these guys are so extreme they don't even admit there is a left side to their own bodies.

Nope, only have two right eyes, two right hands, two right feet...
 
2012-11-20 10:22:44 AM  
FTA: "The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?" said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader

The fun thing about nutjobs is they don't realize they're nutjobs.
 
2012-11-20 10:22:56 AM  

ghare:

Then they have to be willing to lose for a couple years, like a baseball team rebuilding.


I think that's going to happen no matter what.
 
2012-11-20 10:23:18 AM  
a.abcnews.com
Soon
 
2012-11-20 10:23:20 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The Republican party is considerably more moderate than the conservatives I know.


Really? Liberals tend to be much further left leaning than their party--I know conservatives that span the entire range of their party--most towards the far right.
 
2012-11-20 10:24:10 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 10:24:12 AM  

Weaver95: ghare:

Then they have to be willing to lose for a couple years, like a baseball team rebuilding.

I think that's going to happen no matter what.


Depends on what part of the country they're in.
 
2012-11-20 10:25:53 AM  
Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?
 
2012-11-20 10:26:01 AM  

ghare: Weaver95: ghare:

Then they have to be willing to lose for a couple years, like a baseball team rebuilding.

I think that's going to happen no matter what.

Depends on what part of the country they're in.


point conceded - there are areas of this country that will always vote for the american taliban. But if that becomes the core of the GOP then the Republicans doom themselves to becoming a regional party and will lose control of Congress.
 
2012-11-20 10:26:02 AM  

TimonC346: DarnoKonrad: The Republican party is considerably more moderate than the conservatives I know.

Really? Liberals tend to be much further left leaning than their party--I know conservatives that span the entire range of their party--most towards the far right.


I don't think he was comparing Dem vs. GOP, but you're right. Most liberals (like myself) only grudgingly support the Democrats as our only real choice sans a truly "liberal" party.
 
2012-11-20 10:26:09 AM  
Please proceed GOP
 
2012-11-20 10:26:25 AM  
Yes. This is true.

They could have won had they been more conservative.

I fully support their efforts to move further right and create the theocracy that our Christian founders intended.

They lost because of the MSM and atheists are destroying this great nation.

Fight on brothers!
 
2012-11-20 10:26:33 AM  

coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?


LOL thats not what happened
 
2012-11-20 10:26:47 AM  

TimonC346: DarnoKonrad: The Republican party is considerably more moderate than the conservatives I know.

Really? Liberals tend to be much further left leaning than their party--I know conservatives that span the entire range of their party--most towards the far right.


Nobody really thinks the Democrats are liberal, do they?
 
2012-11-20 10:27:03 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


He's saying that they need to expand their base and start to go after the non-douchebag voters.
 
2012-11-20 10:27:42 AM  
I approve of the GOP's efforts to further marginalize themselves. Go for broke gents
 
2012-11-20 10:28:25 AM  

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: TimonC346: DarnoKonrad: The Republican party is considerably more moderate than the conservatives I know.

Really? Liberals tend to be much further left leaning than their party--I know conservatives that span the entire range of their party--most towards the far right.

I don't think he was comparing Dem vs. GOP, but you're right. Most liberals (like myself) only grudgingly support the Democrats as our only real choice sans a truly "liberal" party.


this
 
2012-11-20 10:30:02 AM  
To moderate OS actually a reasonable diagnosis. He had to sprint right in the primary and then sprint back. It made him out to be a flip flopper and he was never able to stake out a clear position or sound earnest about anything. I suspect that someone to the right of him would have lost by a substantiall
 
2012-11-20 10:30:36 AM  

CPennypacker: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

LOL thats not what happened


Really? Then what happened? $$$$? So start a collection by the evangelicals. Let's see if that really gets them over the 20% hump in the primaries.
 
2012-11-20 10:30:37 AM  
To moderate OS actually a reasonable diagnosis. He had to sprint right in the primary and then sprint back. It made him out to be a flip flopper and he was never able to stake out a clear position or sound earnest about anything. I suspect that someone to the right of him would have lost by a substantially smaller margin.
 
2012-11-20 10:30:54 AM  

Muta: FTA: "The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?" said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader

The fun thing about nutjobs is they don't realize they're nutjobs.


Bobby Ass Der Splats needs to be told to STFU and GTFO.
 
2012-11-20 10:32:33 AM  

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Please proceed GOP

 
2012-11-20 10:33:55 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The Republican party is considerably more moderate than the conservatives I know.


Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...strike that. Reverse it.
 
2012-11-20 10:34:23 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Geez, you'd think some of these guys are so extreme they don't even admit there is a left side to their own bodies.

Nope, only have two right eyes, two right hands, two right feet...


Well lord knows they tend to go in circles.
 
2012-11-20 10:34:32 AM  
What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.
 
2012-11-20 10:34:39 AM  
What I call the Barry Goldwater theory: I'd rather pick the right guy, even though he is likely to lose, than pick the wrong guy, even though he has a better shot at winning.

Granted Goldwater's loss was partially attributable to a backlash to the Kennedy assassination, he was still the right guy. And he got smoked.
 
2012-11-20 10:35:35 AM  
Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

And really, who didn't see this coming?
 
2012-11-20 10:35:49 AM  

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Please proceed GOP


These three words are going to be used a lot by the left during the next 4 years...
 
2012-11-20 10:36:20 AM  

SlothB77: What I call the Barry Goldwater theory: I'd rather pick the right guy, even though he is likely to lose, than pick the wrong guy, even though he has a better shot at winning.

Granted Goldwater's loss was partially attributable to a backlash to the Kennedy assassination, he was still the right guy. And he got smoked.


Not so much the right guy if you happened to be black.
 
2012-11-20 10:36:38 AM  
www.clipartguide.com

Please do, you may be able to garner 100 or so electoral college votes in the next election.
 
2012-11-20 10:37:17 AM  

hugram: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Please proceed GOP

These three words are going to be used a lot by the left during the next 4 years...


And if possible in the context of the media being used, should be accompanied by the following image:

www.cnac.org
 
2012-11-20 10:37:20 AM  
The "not conservative enough" excuse is just so incredibly dumb I'm surprised even the right wing echo chamber can't see it.

If a true conservative would have won, why did Romney beat out all of the arch-conservative nutters in the primary?

If a true conservative would have won, why did Obama get more votes despite being more liberal than Romney?

If you truly think there are all these people who will only vote for a true conservative then why enable and vote for RINOs when you think they are destined to be losers who garner fewer votes?

The answer to all of these is because you're a goddamn moron if you think a more radical candidate would win where a more moderate one lost.
 
2012-11-20 10:37:40 AM  

UberDave: unlikely: Starting?

That's what I cam here to say. They started going berserk at about 10pm (CST) a couple of weeks decades ago.

 
2012-11-20 10:37:40 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


What's mysterious about it?
 
2012-11-20 10:38:09 AM  
Was I wrong in thinking that Romney's post election comments about the Obama gifts-to-voters was supposed to appeal to the right wing of the GOP?
 
2012-11-20 10:38:28 AM  
Good luck with that. You only lost so big because the Conservative base stayed home, right?
 
2012-11-20 10:39:35 AM  

CPennypacker: DO IT


Let's not.

The Democrats could screw the pooch next election, and we could be left with a raging arseclown leading the US.
 
2012-11-20 10:40:03 AM  

odinsposse: The "not conservative enough" excuse is just so incredibly dumb I'm surprised even the right wing echo chamber can't see it.

If a true conservative would have won, why did Romney beat out all of the arch-conservative nutters in the primary?

If a true conservative would have won, why did Obama get more votes despite being more liberal than Romney?

If you truly think there are all these people who will only vote for a true conservative then why enable and vote for RINOs when you think they are destined to be losers who garner fewer votes?

The answer to all of these is because you're a goddamn moron if you think a more radical candidate would win where a more moderate one lost.


Simple answer they'll give you:

Romney did not energize the base to get out and vote (regardless of the legitimacy of that claim).

Personally, they seem pretty "energized" to me:

completeoutrage.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-20 10:40:08 AM  
The only way the 'romney lost because he wasn't far enough to the right' theory works is if you assume that a lot of conservatives stayed home on election day - that a lot of republicans compared the moderate Romney to the godless socialist Kenyan bent on destroying America as we know it and decided it wasn't worth getting out of the barcolounger to get the Anti-Christ out of the oval office.
 
2012-11-20 10:40:37 AM  
t4toby.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-20 10:41:00 AM  

fickenchucker: What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.


You keep on chucking that ficken.

/love the handle.
 
2012-11-20 10:41:39 AM  

fickenchucker: What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.


you are correct on your many accounts, sir.

first, Akin, Limbaugh and Mourdouck did Romney no favors.

second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways.

third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic.
 
2012-11-20 10:42:11 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


People who drink like a fish?
 
2012-11-20 10:43:59 AM  
The only reason Romney got as many votes as he did was because he was more of a moderate. If the GOP yahoos had actually managed to nominate someone like Santorum or Bachmann, they would have lost by even more.
 
2012-11-20 10:45:37 AM  

Karac: The only way the 'romney lost because he wasn't far enough to the right' theory works is if you assume that a lot of conservatives stayed home on election day - that a lot of republicans compared the moderate Romney to the godless socialist Kenyan bent on destroying America as we know it and decided it wasn't worth getting out of the barcolounger to get the Anti-Christ out of the oval office.


I can't find a decent source for voter turnout trends by party, but lots of new sources cite lower turnout overall. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine less enthusiasm for Romney / Ryan than McCain / Palin, since she had a shot at being the first woman VP even if she is a certifiable imbecile.
 
2012-11-20 10:46:16 AM  

fickenchucker: What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.


Bain sold companies as a healthier concern... To China. And the US taxpayer got to pick up the cost of the bankruptcy of the old company. Bain and Romney made piles of cash, but they did so at the expense of individual people, the states the company used to be in, and the US taxpayers in general. While what he did was legal, it was in no way helpful, and there are many people who feel that it should NOT be legal.
 
2012-11-20 10:46:26 AM  

coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?


coeyagi: CPennypacker: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

LOL thats not what happened

Really? Then what happened? $$$$? So start a collection by the evangelicals. Let's see if that really gets them over the 20% hump in the primaries.


Actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was that Republicans LOVED each and every one of those candidates until they made some ridiculously bad mistake that everyone knew would render them unelectable. It wasn't "these guys are too far out on the fringe." It was "Aw shucks, the fringy guy we wanted can't be elected now. On to Rick Santorum, I guess."
 
2012-11-20 10:48:06 AM  

fickenchucker: I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.


Those comments highlighted a serious issue in the GOP. Either they believe the statements, they haven't thought through all the possibilities of their viewpoint, or they place the life of nonsentient fetus well above the rights of an actual living breathing human. It's one of the three, and none of them are good press for the Right.

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


You know, rich theogogues who don't need to work for a living.
 
2012-11-20 10:49:27 AM  

The Name: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

coeyagi: CPennypacker: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

LOL thats not what happened

Really? Then what happened? $$$$? So start a collection by the evangelicals. Let's see if that really gets them over the 20% hump in the primaries.

Actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was that Republicans LOVED each and every one of those candidates until they made some ridiculously bad mistake that everyone knew would render them unelectable. It wasn't "these guys are too far out on the fringe." It was "Aw shucks, the fringy guy we wanted can't be elected now. On to Rick Santorum, I guess."


They said something stupid.... because they're fringe. It isn't like they let their sub-conscious get the better of them - this is the shiat they believe and can't be filtered that easily.
 
2012-11-20 10:49:53 AM  
Please proceed, GOP.
 
2012-11-20 10:50:41 AM  

Teufelaffe: The only reason Romney got as many votes as he did was because he was more of a moderate. If the GOP yahoos had actually managed to nominate someone like Santorum or Bachmann, they would have lost by even more.


That's true. And since Romney lost anyway, as a moderate Republican, I almost wish a Santorum or a Bachmann had won the primary, so they would have been destroyed in the general, and the far right would shut up and the Republicans could nominate a Huntsman-esque candidate in 2016. Although then the Republicans probably wouldn't have the House.
 
2012-11-20 10:51:02 AM  

The Name: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

coeyagi: CPennypacker: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

LOL thats not what happened

Really? Then what happened? $$$$? So start a collection by the evangelicals. Let's see if that really gets them over the 20% hump in the primaries.

Actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was that Republicans LOVED each and every one of those candidates until they made some ridiculously bad mistake that everyone knew would render them unelectable. It wasn't "these guys are too far out on the fringe." It was "Aw shucks, the fringy guy we wanted can't be elected now. On to Rick Santorum, I guess."


Yeah, every single looney tion on the roster had their turn as Not Mitt Romney before they each disqualified themselves by acting like overgrown children in public. Eventually, they ran out of Not Mitt Romneys.
 
2012-11-20 10:51:16 AM  

SlothB77:

second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways..


so you are saying that GOP talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and all those guys are a weak business model and deserve to be destroyed?
 
2012-11-20 10:51:16 AM  
Santorum 2016...do it. DO IT.


2016 is going to wreck the GOP (I hope). The far right will not accept another moderate as the nominee.
If the GOP nominates Christie or some similar establishment figure, I think they'll lose their minds. Possibly split off or at least sit out the election.

on the other hand, if the GOP ends up nominating Santorum or Bachmann or some crazy-ass saint of the fringe they'll be absolutely humiliated and destroyed in the general. Good god the debates would be awesome!

/say it with me...President Hillary Clinton
 
2012-11-20 10:51:40 AM  

fickenchucker: I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.


The Republican party claims to be a party of fiscal restraint but the last Republican president who oversaw an era of anything like fiscal restraint was Richard Nixon.
 
2012-11-20 10:52:36 AM  

SlothB77: third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic


When did we have 4 years of liberalism?
 
2012-11-20 10:53:42 AM  

SlothB77: fickenchucker: What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.


By saying what some consevatives actually think.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

Yeah like Hostess. It's so hard to make and sell bread.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

Already been proposed and shot down many times, now we're getting sequestration. You wanted it, you got it, now pay for it.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.

you are correct on your many accounts, sir.


I too often agree with statements reflecting my point of view.

first, Akin, Limbaugh and Mourdouck did Romney no favors.

By saying out loud what many conservatives actually believe.

second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways.

So Bain buying them and ruining an already damaged company = good?

third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic.

Keep f*cking that chicken.
 
2012-11-20 10:54:09 AM  

SlothB77: fickenchucker: What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.

you are correct on your many accounts, sir.

first, Akin, Limbaugh and Mourdouck did Romney no favors.

second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways.

third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic.


Luckily, we didn't elect a liberal, but rather Reagan republican with dark skin.
 
2012-11-20 10:54:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: SlothB77: third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic

When did we have 4 years of liberalism?


GOP logic: anyone not Republican is librul.
 
2012-11-20 10:54:51 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Geez, you'd think some of these guys are so extreme they don't even admit there is a left side to their own bodies.

Nope, only have two right eyes, two right hands, two right feet...


In fact you could say that...

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

...these guys are all right.

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
 
2012-11-20 10:56:45 AM  

Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: SlothB77: third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic

When did we have 4 years of liberalism?

GOP logic: anyone not Republican is librul.


It's sooooo librul to be for gay rights 30 years after Europe does it.

America is like retro-liberal, man.
 
2012-11-20 10:58:05 AM  

coeyagi: They said something stupid.... because they're fringe. It isn't like they let their sub-conscious get the better of them - this is the shiat they believe and can't be filtered that easily.


Every single farking thing they said was stupid and fringy. Did you watch the GOP debates at all? Republican voters ate up everything those candidates said until they had an "oops" moment or a sex scandal that made them unelectable. And even the two examples I alluded to just now had nothing to do with their fringe politics.
 
2012-11-20 10:58:07 AM  

fickenchucker: What sunk the election was the litany of stupid comments from others, like Akin.

And an imprecise description of how economics work. Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern. Good ones are more successful at it than others, and some distressed companies are too far gone to save.

We are truly headed for a debt-laden crater in the road unless we figure out how to decrease spending, and possibly increase taxes. Definitely need to increase employment, therefore raising revenues through growth.

I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.



So, in your opinion, the only problems the RPUSA have are messaging problems? That given a sufficiently comprehensive presentation of information, that the majority of voters will naturally conclude that R policies are the only ones that will actually work?

Sounds a little naïve to me. For myself, one of the reasons I've rejected the Republican message is that while y'all pretend it's principle-based it's more dogma-based. Many beliefs fly in the face of my own direct experience (e.g. the belief that the top marginal federal income tax rate is a bigger influence on job creation than demand, to pick just one,) and I don't see any investigation on the right to determine if their shiat actually works as advertised. On the contrary, that sort of thing is discouraged.

I can't be the only one who thinks that way on purely practical grounds, and no amount of Akin-muzzling or pro-venture capital PR would change our minds.
 
2012-11-20 10:59:11 AM  

you have pee hands: fickenchucker: I would agree the tide may have shifted a little on other issues, too, although the main points of loss this time were poor communication by Romney's campaign and idiotic slut/rape commentaries that made no sense.

The Republican party claims to be a party of fiscal restraint but the last Republican president who oversaw an era of anything like fiscal restraint was Richard Nixon.


Aren't they also proposing Carter-esque austerity measures as well? They love the 70's
 
2012-11-20 11:03:16 AM  
I heard this sentiment coming from republicans the day after the election, but I didn't think it would gain traction. It's starting to gain traction. If it holds, it is the beginning of the end for the GOP.
 
2012-11-20 11:03:30 AM  

coeyagi: Karac: The only way the 'romney lost because he wasn't far enough to the right' theory works is if you assume that a lot of conservatives stayed home on election day - that a lot of republicans compared the moderate Romney to the godless socialist Kenyan bent on destroying America as we know it and decided it wasn't worth getting out of the barcolounger to get the Anti-Christ out of the oval office.

I can't find a decent source for voter turnout trends by party, but lots of new sources cite lower turnout overall. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine less enthusiasm for Romney / Ryan than McCain / Palin, since she had a shot at being the first woman VP even if she is a certifiable imbecile.


I'm just saying - Romney might not have been the 'best' candidate by their standards. But they've spent the last four years saying that Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to the country. If that's true, then how any republican should have been able to beat them.

If you put boxes of food in front of a voter:
one is labeled 'Obama' and you say that not only is it cowshiat, it's explosive diarhea cowshiat
one labeled 'Romney' that you say is a mayo and white bread sandwich
one labeled 'Santorum' that is steak and lobster, with a nice chardonney, and a blowjob from the pretty waitress

Then it shouldn't matter which of the last two boxes win in the primary - either one of them should easily beat the first.
Replacing the 'Romney' box with the 'Santorum' box in 2016 isn't going to change the outcome if people still don't believe you when you tell them what's in the box.
 
2012-11-20 11:03:49 AM  

gunga galunga: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Geez, you'd think some of these guys are so extreme they don't even admit there is a left side to their own bodies.

Nope, only have two right eyes, two right hands, two right feet...

In fact you could say that...

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

...these guys are all right.

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!


I'd say...

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

that's a conservative estimate. 

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
 
2012-11-20 11:04:17 AM  

The Name: coeyagi: They said something stupid.... because they're fringe. It isn't like they let their sub-conscious get the better of them - this is the shiat they believe and can't be filtered that easily.

Every single farking thing they said was stupid and fringy. Did you watch the GOP debates at all? Republican voters ate up everything those candidates said until they had an "oops" moment or a sex scandal that made them unelectable. And even the two examples I alluded to just now had nothing to do with their fringe politics.


No, the "oops" moment was Santorum playing to the base, speaking his mind about neo-fascist crap that some of the base ate up and others were like "shiat, that's ridiculous."
 
2012-11-20 11:05:50 AM  
I guess those religious leaders and activists weren't paying attention to the primaries, where Romney was the best of the lot. Or were the Right's primary voters just all moderate RINOs?
 
2012-11-20 11:06:05 AM  

JimbobMcClan: Aren't they also proposing Carter-esque austerity measures as well? They love the 70's


What?
 
2012-11-20 11:07:02 AM  

coeyagi: The Name: coeyagi: They said something stupid.... because they're fringe. It isn't like they let their sub-conscious get the better of them - this is the shiat they believe and can't be filtered that easily.

Every single farking thing they said was stupid and fringy. Did you watch the GOP debates at all? Republican voters ate up everything those candidates said until they had an "oops" moment or a sex scandal that made them unelectable. And even the two examples I alluded to just now had nothing to do with their fringe politics.

No, the "oops" moment was Santorum playing to the base, speaking his mind about neo-fascist crap that some of the base ate up and others were like "shiat, that's ridiculous."


Actually, let me put it this way, they had "oops" moments about facts because they are theocratic assholes who only think at shiat through the prism of the Bible, so if someone asks them about Science, they're going to sound like morons. Either way you look at it, they say stupid shiat because they're fringe and some people are like "f*ck, we can't vote for these imbeciles."
 
2012-11-20 11:08:22 AM  
Romney had nothing. He was Etch-a-Sketch. There was nothing to his own campaign platform. He switched positions so often, no one knew what he actually had in his brain on anything.

Unfortunately... that left a void, and opening, a space for other candidates' bullshiat to seep, to take the place that an answer from Romney/Ryan might have held at bay.

Everything that any moronic Republican said stuck to Romney. The was the standard bearer at the head of a blithering pile of stupidity. Sure, 'he' didn't hold to most of that malarkey, but it didn't matter because Romney was a vessel without any substance within. Akin, Mourdock... they poured in the crazy, and that's what people saw. A Romney bottle with Teabagger Juice inside.
 
2012-11-20 11:10:53 AM  

SlothB77: four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic.


Enough about France, what are your thoughts on the USA?
 
2012-11-20 11:11:49 AM  

Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: SlothB77: third, four more years of liberalism could be catastrophic

When did we have 4 years of liberalism?

GOP logic: anyone not Republican is librul.


Maybe a 100 years ago?
 
2012-11-20 11:12:02 AM  
The Republican Party was once one of the main two political parties in the United States. It was founded in 1854, eventually replacing the Whig Party as the main opposition to the Democratic Party. The Republican platform reflected American conservatism in the United States at one time. Eighteen presidents were Republicans. Their most dominant period was between 1860 to 1932. Starting in 2012 and with the re-election of President Barack Obama, the Republican Party began to devolve into a regional party, relegated to rural areas and the Deep South. By 2040 the Republican Party reduced to a rump party, as American conservatism had shifted into the newer opposition party, the Praise Morbo Party.
 
2012-11-20 11:15:41 AM  
Man, I should get paid like a million dollars in consulting fees for this but I'm going to give the GOP free advice on how to be more appealing to minorities...STOP F*CKING INSINUATING THAT THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS EVERYTIME YOU ASSHOLES LOSE AN ELECTION.
 
2012-11-20 11:15:45 AM  

coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?


Frothy was cockblocked by Gingrich across the entire south. If it weren't for Gingrich leaching his votes in all the conservative states Santorum would probably have been their nominee.
 
2012-11-20 11:19:18 AM  

coeyagi: Either way you look at it, they say stupid shiat because they're fringe and some people are like "f*ck, we can't vote for these imbeciles."


You're right, but very few people who say that are Republicans.
 
2012-11-20 11:20:40 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: STOP F*CKING INSINUATING THAT THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS EVERYTIME YOU ASSHOLES LOSE AN ELECTION.


Truth is that they offer their own handouts, but they're only for the super rich and those people don't get the 1 million votes apiece that they rightfully deserve to balance out all the poor people who don't do anything to deserve their votes.

or some such dumbass logic.
 
2012-11-20 11:22:17 AM  
I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.
 
2012-11-20 11:22:51 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: coeyagi: Look, dipshiats, your own party thought that Frothy, Corn Dog, N*bonghead, Major Tom Gingrich and 9-9-9 were too fringe during the primaries. What makes you think voters will go down Derp Highway again in 2016?

Frothy was cockblocked by Gingrich across the entire south. If it weren't for Gingrich leaching his votes in all the conservative states Santorum would probably have been their nominee.


I hope he wins the 2016 nomination. The dems could run Stalin himself and he'd win
 
2012-11-20 11:23:18 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Man, I should get paid like a million dollars in consulting fees for this but I'm going to give the GOP free advice on how to be more appealing to minorities...STOP F*CKING INSINUATING THAT THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS EVERYTIME YOU ASSHOLES LOSE AN ELECTION.


Psst: Here's the secret -- they don't want to appeal to minorities.
 
2012-11-20 11:23:26 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: To moderate OS actually a reasonable diagnosis. He had to sprint right in the primary and then sprint back. It made him out to be a flip flopper and he was never able to stake out a clear position or sound earnest about anything. I suspect that someone to the right of him would have lost by a substantially smaller margin.




I disagree with that assessment. I think Romney's relative moderation did make it a pain to go through the primaries of an increasingly extremist party, but a Santorum or Bachmann candidacy would've been absolutely slaughtered in the general election. From the getgo, even with all of his flaws, Romney was easily the most likely to beat Obama.... and he still lost.

I don't think Romney looked like a flip-flopper because he had to move from positions stated in the primary to positions that sit well in the general... it's that he had no real spin involved. Say one thing that contradicts a previous/statement position? "No I didn't say that" seem to be his only excuse. And those flip-flops weren't just limited to his presidential run, but pretty much his entire career; this all totaled up into a picture of either someone that cannot be trusted or someone that doesn't know, or care, about the position he is currently upselling.

A far right candidate probably would've been more consistent on their message, which probably would've lead to a more excited base... but it would be a small, excited base that would've excited Obama's base even more.
 
2012-11-20 11:23:52 AM  

The Name: coeyagi: Either way you look at it, they say stupid shiat because they're fringe and some people are like "f*ck, we can't vote for these imbeciles."

You're right, but very few people who say that are Republicans.


Tough to say, other than pretty much all the wealthy Northeast Republicans.
 
2012-11-20 11:24:52 AM  

Fart_Machine: Keep moving further to the extreme fringe. What could possibly go wrong?


images59.fotki.com
 
2012-11-20 11:25:32 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: Holocaust Agnostic: To moderate OS actually a reasonable diagnosis. He had to sprint right in the primary and then sprint back. It made him out to be a flip flopper and he was never able to stake out a clear position or sound earnest about anything. I suspect that someone to the right of him would have lost by a substantially smaller margin.



I disagree with that assessment. I think Romney's relative moderation did make it a pain to go through the primaries of an increasingly extremist party, but a Santorum or Bachmann candidacy would've been absolutely slaughtered in the general election. From the getgo, even with all of his flaws, Romney was easily the most likely to beat Obama.... and he still lost.

I don't think Romney looked like a flip-flopper because he had to move from positions stated in the primary to positions that sit well in the general... it's that he had no real spin involved. Say one thing that contradicts a previous/statement position? "No I didn't say that" seem to be his only excuse. And those flip-flops weren't just limited to his presidential run, but pretty much his entire career; this all totaled up into a picture of either someone that cannot be trusted or someone that doesn't know, or care, about the position he is currently upselling.

A far right candidate probably would've been more consistent on their message, which probably would've lead to a more excited base... but it would be a small, excited base that would've excited Obama's base even more.


A far right candidate would never have gotten the bump that Romney did after the first debate. He got that bump because he portrayed himself as a moderate and distanced himself from many conservative policies.
 
2012-11-20 11:25:41 AM  
There's no way I'm voting for Nobama now
 
2012-11-20 11:26:48 AM  

SlothB77: second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways.


It is silly to replay the game but for the record, Obama's Campaign indicated they did not support and backed off the most egregiousness claims about Romney at Bain. They spoke out against the Ad regarding the woman who lost health care and didn't use the "I like to fire people" line.

Romney's campaign stuck by their lies on Welfare and on "you didn't build that" bullshiat. Obama ran a much more honest campaign and his policy platform was also clearly more honest as well.
 
2012-11-20 11:27:13 AM  

what_now: Bain sold companies as a healthier concern... To China. And the US taxpayer got to pick up the cost of the bankruptcy of the old company. Bain and Romney made piles of cash, but they did so at the expense of individual people, the states the company used to be in, and the US taxpayers in general. While what he did was legal, it was in no way helpful, and there are many people who feel that it should NOT be legal.



The companies were for sale to anyone who wanted to buy them. They were sale to you if you were in a postion to acquire the funding. Anyone from Oregon, Canada, or England could have bought them. Are you saying you hate brown people?



phaseolus: So, in your opinion, the only problems the RPUSA have are messaging problems? That given a sufficiently comprehensive presentation of information, that the majority of voters will naturally conclude that R policies are the only ones that will actually work?



Look at my comments closely. I said "this time", because the election, like many presidential elections, was closer in the popular vote than the electoral college indicates. This election was winnable.

But time marches on and we accept more and more as normal. Remember when it was a big farking deal when Dennis Franz showed his butt on TV? I watched Firefly with my kids the other day and Nathan Fillion showed his butt after being left in the desert naked--no big deal. By that simplistic example I'm saying it is inevitable many things the Republicans are biatching about will become normal. So it really is time to get off tiny divisive issues and get back to the roots of sustainable government.

We need a more sensible budget, that provides a military that is strong enough to to scare the rest of the world, but have weapons systems the military really doesn't want trimmed to save costs, a scaling back of social programs because they are economically impossible to keep funding as the population ages, a rise in taxation slightly to meet in the middle, and less petty divisiveness on both sides that are blatant vote-pandering maneuvers.
 
2012-11-20 11:27:25 AM  
Which is why I wanted them to pick Santorum, a guy so toxic that he makes Akin and Mourdock look reasonable.

But it wasn't worth the risk, and thankfully Romney stole Iowa from Santorum.

But I can almost guarantee that if Santorum had run and lost, the extreme right would be saying the same goddamn thing, that Santorum just wasn't conservative enough.
 
2012-11-20 11:28:07 AM  

Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.


I'm afraid that William Burroughs has pretty much burned that down.
 
2012-11-20 11:28:14 AM  
John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.
 
2012-11-20 11:29:54 AM  
They will forced to pick a moderate during the GOP primaries. The Dems will have their primaries at the same time. This years primaries would've looked crazier go nutz if the Dems were also having a primary.
 
2012-11-20 11:30:46 AM  

jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.


Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.
 
2012-11-20 11:31:18 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: A far right candidate would never have gotten the bump that Romney did after the first debate. He got that bump because he portrayed himself as a moderate and distanced himself from many conservative policies.




I don't quite agree that that's why Romney got a bump. I think that bump had mostly to do with Obama looking bad and Mitt pretty much dominating the debate, regardless of substance. Granted, I'm not convinced Santorum or Bachmann could've done the same as Romney, but Gingrich probably could've and he has much more baggage.
 
2012-11-20 11:31:40 AM  

jso2897: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.


Jesus isn't conservative enough.
 
2012-11-20 11:33:30 AM  

unexplained bacon: Santorum 2016...do it. DO IT.


2016 is going to wreck the GOP (I hope). The far right will not accept another moderate as the nominee.
If the GOP nominates Christie or some similar establishment figure, I think they'll lose their minds. Possibly split off or at least sit out the election.


Meh. That's what they were saying about Romney during the everlasting debates (too liberal, too Mormon-y, too northeastern-y, not enough waving-a-gun-above-your-head-y, etc.). Those "libertarians" and "independents" came around and voted for him anyway. Much like the republican convictions of "less government" and "more freedom", they have a tendency to drop "I will not vote for this guy if he's our nominee" as soon as a needle through a camel's haystack.
 
2012-11-20 11:34:01 AM  

jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.


John Kerry got "swiftboated" and criticized for his "global test" comment regarding international security*. The knock on Kerry was that he let his critics get away with defining him via the swiftboat attacks, not that he wasn't liberal enough.


*When Obama "acts Republican" and uses military force unilaterally WITHOUT a "global test", the GOP suddenly has a problem with it. Funny how that works.
 
2012-11-20 11:34:39 AM  
No, you farkers. You can't claim this. You guys spent the last six months swearing that Romney was a true conservative. It was all his sucking up to the far right, his 47% and other comments, that hurt him the most. You own this you dumb lying farkers.

But sure. Swear moderation is the problem. Purge your party of moderates and RINOs. Do everything you can to kill intelligence, civil discourse, and the country.
 
2012-11-20 11:35:33 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: JimbobMcClan: Aren't they also proposing Carter-esque austerity measures as well? They love the 70's

What?


I was still young in the 70's, ~9, but I vaguely remember the stagflation that was going on with Carter not spending much and cutting back on gov't services to pay for the Dept of energy and some other dept and the republicans telling him to spend more to get the economy going. I could be wrong, too lazy to look it up now.
 
2012-11-20 11:35:49 AM  

jso2897: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.


Breitbart's heart wasn't boostrappy enough for cocaine in 2012.
 
2012-11-20 11:36:42 AM  

The Name: Actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was that Republicans LOVED each and every one of those candidates until they made some ridiculously bad mistake that everyone knew would render them unelectable. It wasn't "these guys are too far out on the fringe." It was "Aw shucks, the fringy guy we wanted can't be elected now. On to Rick Santorum, I guess."


Exactly...think Akin but on a national level. The issue with those candidates wasn't what they said, but the fact they said it in public. Jesus, the mere fact most of them were even allowed to be considered candidates speaks volumes.

The fact it took Romney months and zillions of dollars to finally defeat that ship of fools tells you all you need to know about GOP voters.
 
2012-11-20 11:37:04 AM  
You know what? They have a point. Let them run a clear conservative using the current definition. Let them put in a theocratic who speaks ill of women other than traditional stay-at-home moms to who live by the motto, "He for God only, she for God in him." Let them speak ill of Blah people. Let them talk of taking America back from...anyone who is not them. Let them talk about protecting our borders from Mexico (but not Canada. Let them talk about an amendment to the constitution that nullify equal marriage, even in states that voted for it.Let them run on an economic plan where the poor and middle class know their place - strictly below those upon whom their god has seen fit to reward with riches. And they should also talk about how their god, a god they say is the god of goodness and love, uses rapists as tools in the creation of life. And, let them talk about the evils of science when the Bible is the only science book we need.

Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.
 
2012-11-20 11:38:11 AM  

Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.


How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?
 
2012-11-20 11:38:30 AM  

lordjupiter: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

John Kerry got "swiftboated" and criticized for his "global test" comment regarding international security*. The knock on Kerry was that he let his critics get away with defining him via the swiftboat attacks, not that he wasn't liberal enough.




I recall plenty of people lamenting that Howard Dean did not get the nomination. While I like the guy and would've loved to vote for him, I'm not convinced he would've won for reasons that are kind of similar to an inverse Santorum.

/it should be noted that "inverse santorum" sounds like an awful sexual innuendo.
 
2012-11-20 11:40:13 AM  
allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.
 
2012-11-20 11:43:45 AM  

chuckufarlie: allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.


The problem isn't that they have a voice, it's that they are a very large percentage of what's left in the party. They've been purging and making themselves ideologically pure for almost two decades and they are just starting to suffer the consequences. Leeds is absolutely right in what they need to do to stay viable in the long term, I just think they've gone too far down the path of derp to be able to quickly turn it around. Then again, never underestimate the stupidity of people.
 
2012-11-20 11:45:50 AM  

coeyagi: hugram: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Please proceed GOP

These three words are going to be used a lot by the left during the next 4 years...

And if possible in the context of the media being used, should be accompanied by the following image:

[www.cnac.org image 350x249]


Here. I made it easier for you.

i158.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 11:45:54 AM  

DeaH: Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.


They would find some excuse to explain his loss. Anything but to admit that having someone that far to the right was the culprit.

Remember that these people believe that their candidate has the backing of God. There is no logic, only blind faith. It cannot be reasoned with. You cannot argue with it. And you can never hope to change their mind.
 
2012-11-20 11:46:51 AM  

Teufelaffe: The only reason Romney got as many votes as he did was because he was more of a moderate. If the GOP yahoos had actually managed to nominate someone like Santorum or Bachmann, they would have lost by even more.


Sssshhhhhhh! Don't let the secret out, or else they may try a smarter strategy for 2016!
 
2012-11-20 11:55:09 AM  
Romney campaigned badly. No amount of spin can make him a better or more able candidate. Folks tried. He said horrible things, he did so in the smarmiest way possible, and showed the empathy of a Shetland pony's hoof trimmings. Instead of noting this, folks went ahead and tried to spin this, and make him seem palatable by describing his every move as wonderful, even when in demonstrably wasn't. FOX and mainstream media outlets played up the spin zone, because they wanted this to be a closer race. It made ratings, and that made cash. Plain and simple. Romney's run wasn't about winning the Presidency, it was securing cash from rubes, and making advertising dollars. He was as much a political special effect as Palin was. A failed Primary candidate, who ran against a pool of idiots and defectives, and THAT race was merely to exercise legal graft to secure dollars from rubes to give to campaigns that everyone KNEW would fail miserably, but it gave a way to slide bucks to the right folks, and under the premise of MOAR DEMOCRACY while never quite telling the public that none of the Idiot Brigade's candidates had a whisper of a prayer of winning, and in fairness, their biggest fear would have been to actually WIN the Primary, and then have to campaign against the guy who got Bin Laden.

It wasn't that he wasn't Right enough. He was a bad candidate, who wasted a lot of time and money, and that was pretty much the job that he was supposed to perform. He helped make a spectacle of the race, to fire up folks who are idiot enough to imagine that their radicalized ramblings are even close to popular beyond their echo chamber, and the policy positions that they've been spoonfed are anywhere near good for even themselves of the nation.

Romney lost because he was not a good candidate. He was not the best that could have been fielded, and a competent campaign manager might have done him some good, but that wasn't what was necessary. In order to KEEP milking the Idiot Brigade, there needed to be sacrifice. Romney fit the bill, and he'll be compensated for the embarrassment, unlike Bob Dole who fell on his political sword for the party going up against Clinton. That is the difference in the races. Dole served his country, and his party, with a modicum of dignity at least, while Romney was a trough to feed folks and shuck and grift rubes of hard earned cash, and keep them focused well and away from the folks who got them into this mess. His loss wasn't from being Not Far Enough, but from being a piss poor candidate from the get go, and a lot of folks who were invested in seeing a narrative moved forward, as opposed to having real policy or anything remotely like a plan for the future.

The butthurt over the loss? That is simply not realizing that they've been had, and are continuing to be milked and massaged for MOAR cash, and falling for it, willingly, and with great enthusiasm.
 
2012-11-20 11:56:44 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]
Soon


I still wonder whether he would actually be acceptable to the far right, "I don't care how many vaginas he wants to sew shut, he's still a Papist!"
 
2012-11-20 11:59:41 AM  

meat0918: jso2897: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.

Jesus isn't conservative enough.


Jesus was a bastard hippie who believed in helping the poor, avoiding violence, and sharing wealth. He's pretty much the direct opposite of modern conservatism.
 
2012-11-20 12:00:12 PM  

Carn: Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.

How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?


I think you'll find that the party is split about 50/50.

We (Mugwumps) are the only path forward though, so we need to come up with a final solution for the religious types who are holding us back.
 
2012-11-20 12:01:15 PM  
Don't count the Repubs out just yet.

I think 8 years of Obama will cause a Democrat backlash in 2016.

Throw in another financial crisis and you have a Repub victory.
 
2012-11-20 12:02:39 PM  

fickenchucker: Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern


That's not what "Venture Capitalists" do. Venture Capital invests in small startups in underexploited or new markets, by gambling that the startup will make gigantic bank later.

Bain in theory is a Private Equity firm, which behaves in the manner you describe.

However, Bain did/does something a bit different.

1) Find a company with decent levels of sellable assets and a good cash flow. The overall health of the company is irrelevent. Let's pretend the company is worth $200 million.

2) Using a personal stake of just a few % of the target company's value (say $10 million in this example), borrow just enough money from a bank to purchase a controlling stake in the target company ($120 million). The target company's management rolls over for this purchase since Bain promises them huge bonuses if they can avoid a hostile takeover.

3) Now that they have a controlling stake in the target, Bain has the target company (and NOT Bain), borrow $150 million using their sellable assets and cash flow as collateral. The target company then pays that borrowed $150 million as "fees" to Bain, who then pays of their loan (and thus maintain a good credit rating for the next raid) and themselves.

4) So in my example, for a $10 million downpayment, Bain made $20 million profit, while the target company has $150 million in debt structured in a way that does not negatively impact Bain.

5) Since the company is worth $200 million, the second bank will also probably get paid, but the original target company will just be a shell of itself, with massive layoffs and benefits cut in order to make the extremely onerous debt payments that the target compny never needed to take on until Bain showed up.

And it is all perfectly legal.
 
2012-11-20 12:06:05 PM  
Mitt Romney presented a different version of himself to every group he spoke to, to such a degree that no one could know what he really believed.

He told moderates what he thought they wanted to hear, and they figured he was probably lying to them.
 
2012-11-20 12:08:50 PM  

FuturePastNow: Mitt Romney presented a different version of himself to every group he spoke to, to such a degree that no one could know what he really believed.

He told moderates what he thought they wanted to hear, and they figured he was probably lying to them.


In fairness, after years of dealing with him in Maine, and Massachusetts, I have found that Mitt has a tell when he is lying.

His lips move.
 
2012-11-20 12:09:36 PM  

SlothB77: second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways.


Not this shait again.
 
2012-11-20 12:10:56 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: fickenchucker: Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern

That's not what "Venture Capitalists" do. Venture Capital invests in small startups in underexploited or new markets, by gambling that the startup will make gigantic bank later.

Bain in theory is a Private Equity firm, which behaves in the manner you describe.

However, Bain did/does something a bit different.

1) Find a company with decent levels of sellable assets and a good cash flow. The overall health of the company is irrelevent. Let's pretend the company is worth $200 million.

2) Using a personal stake of just a few % of the target company's value (say $10 million in this example), borrow just enough money from a bank to purchase a controlling stake in the target company ($120 million). The target company's management rolls over for this purchase since Bain promises them huge bonuses if they can avoid a hostile takeover.

3) Now that they have a controlling stake in the target, Bain has the target company (and NOT Bain), borrow $150 million using their sellable assets and cash flow as collateral. The target company then pays that borrowed $150 million as "fees" to Bain, who then pays of their loan (and thus maintain a good credit rating for the next raid) and themselves.

4) So in my example, for a $10 million downpayment, Bain made $20 million profit, while the target company has $150 million in debt structured in a way that does not negatively impact Bain.

5) Since the company is worth $200 million, the second bank will also probably get paid, but the original target company will just be a shell of itself, with massive layoffs and benefits cut in order to make the extremely onerous debt payments that the target compny never needed to take on until Bain showed up.

And it is all perfectly legal.


Which is the reason the term "Vulture Capitalists" was coined. Though, even that term is a bit misleading, since vultures tend to wait until something is dead before stripping its flesh. Unfortunately, "Flesh-eating Mold Capitalists", while more accurate, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2012-11-20 12:12:02 PM  

DeaH: You know what? They have a point. Let them run a clear conservative using the current definition. Let them put in a theocratic who speaks ill of women other than traditional stay-at-home moms to who live by the motto, "He for God only, she for God in him." Let them speak ill of Blah people. Let them talk of taking America back from...anyone who is not them. Let them talk about protecting our borders from Mexico (but not Canada. Let them talk about an amendment to the constitution that nullify equal marriage, even in states that voted for it.Let them run on an economic plan where the poor and middle class know their place - strictly below those upon whom their god has seen fit to reward with riches. And they should also talk about how their god, a god they say is the god of goodness and love, uses rapists as tools in the creation of life. And, let them talk about the evils of science when the Bible is the only science book we need.

Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.



Rand Paul Teases 2016 Presidential Run Again

Seems to fit the bill pretty well.
 
2012-11-20 12:13:47 PM  
Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.
 
2012-11-20 12:16:36 PM  

Leeds: Carn: Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.

How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?

I think you'll find that the party is split about ...


Have you looked into the Modern Whigs? Same idea but start from the ground up. Center right, pragmatic, and hold ethics and morals in high regard.
 
2012-11-20 12:17:36 PM  

Teufelaffe: Unfortunately, "Flesh-eating Mold Capitalists", while more accurate, just doesn't have the same ring to it.


More of a "1980's AIDS Capitalists", I think - feels good when you make the initial deal, but in a couple of years it has weakened you so much that any minor misfortune that comes along will put you in the grave.
 
2012-11-20 12:20:37 PM  

Loucifer: Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.


Romney was severly conservative? He was squishy and in the debates he agreed with all of Obama's stances and on a couple was to the left.

There has to be a conservative out there that is not a whackadoodle fundy but not a Romney/McCain.
 
2012-11-20 12:21:26 PM  

hubiestubert: In fairness, after years of dealing with him in Maine, and Massachusetts, I have found that Mitt has a tell when he is lying.

His lips move.


Do you have any articles you can reference from when he was involved with UMaine?

I remember him being catastrophic, but I am having trouble actually remembering the details.
 
2012-11-20 12:21:57 PM  

Leeds: Carn: Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.

How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?

I think you'll find that the party is split about ...


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 12:26:22 PM  

Saiga410: Loucifer: Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.

Romney was severly conservative? He was squishy and in the debates he agreed with all of Obama's stances and on a couple was to the left.

There has to be a conservative out there that is not a whackadoodle fundy but not a Romney/McCain.


That's like saying "there has to be cheese sandwich out there that doesn't have cheese but also doesn't have bread."
 
2012-11-20 12:47:22 PM  

fenianfark: DeaH: You know what? They have a point. Let them run a clear conservative using the current definition. Let them put in a theocratic who speaks ill of women other than traditional stay-at-home moms to who live by the motto, "He for God only, she for God in him." Let them speak ill of Blah people. Let them talk of taking America back from...anyone who is not them. Let them talk about protecting our borders from Mexico (but not Canada. Let them talk about an amendment to the constitution that nullify equal marriage, even in states that voted for it.Let them run on an economic plan where the poor and middle class know their place - strictly below those upon whom their god has seen fit to reward with riches. And they should also talk about how their god, a god they say is the god of goodness and love, uses rapists as tools in the creation of life. And, let them talk about the evils of science when the Bible is the only science book we need.

Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.


Rand Paul Teases 2016 Presidential Run Again

Seems to fit the bill pretty well.


Someone has to take over the family grifting business.
 
2012-11-20 12:49:09 PM  

Dinjiin: DeaH: Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.

They would find some excuse to explain his loss. Anything but to admit that having someone that far to the right was the culprit.

Remember that these people believe that their candidate has the backing of God. There is no logic, only blind faith. It cannot be reasoned with. You cannot argue with it. And you can never hope to change their mind.


pictat.com
 
2012-11-20 01:00:27 PM  

UberDave: unlikely: Starting?

That's what I cam here to say. They started going berserk at about 10pm (CST) a couple of weeks ago.


No they started in 2007 during the primaries when they said McCain was too moderate. They conveniently forget that both McCain and Romney abandonded all of their moderate ideals to win their support in those primaries, losing all of their moderate credibility in the process. We'll never know what a true moderate race would have looked like because moderate Republicans can't get through the current primary process.

Had Jon Huntsman won by sticking to his moderate guns, I bet he would have beaten Obama pretty handily. Especially since he isn't a robber baron who shiats on half the country as moochers.
 
2012-11-20 01:11:20 PM  
After 2 straight "moderate republican" losses, and the inevitable moaning that the candidate was not conservative enough, I would like the see the republicans nominate the most conservative tea-baggers alive. Any combination of Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and/or Palin should prove weather America wants to become a conservative Christian theocracy or not.
 
2012-11-20 01:21:07 PM  

Dinjiin: DeaH: Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.

They would find some excuse to explain his loss. Anything but to admit that having someone that far to the right was the culprit.

Remember that these people believe that their candidate has the backing of God. There is no logic, only blind faith. It cannot be reasoned with. You cannot argue with it. And you can never hope to change their mind.


Someone should let them know that if their candidate had the backing of God, God has turned his back on them.... Just sayin'
 
2012-11-20 01:23:11 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


I'd be willing to bet culturally, the upper class is very different from the middle\lower class. I know there's a huge difference in middle v. lower, but it's actually not really a stretch to say that if you're middle\lower class, you're going to act really differently from a rich-class person.

/I refuse to call them high-class, because they generally are really, really not.
 
2012-11-20 01:35:54 PM  

PsiChick: dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.

I'd be willing to bet culturally, the upper class is very different from the middle\lower class. I know there's a huge difference in middle v. lower, but it's actually not really a stretch to say that if you're middle\lower class, you're going to act really differently from a rich-class person.

/I refuse to call them high-class, because they generally are really, really not.


The difference between the lives folks who are in the media income grouping, and the upper tiers is astoundingly wide. As a chef, I get to see a part of that. Between jobs in Boston, in Bar Harbor, in ski resorts and the Biltmore in Phoenix, the cultural gulf between middle income earners and the wealthy in this country isn't just money, but a entire culture grown around them to insulate and protect them. From private schools, to care for their homes and property while away, from clubs and communities that are, by design, to keep the "wrong" element out.

In Maine, Northeast Harbor is a fine example. Northeast Harbor and the "camps" that about around there, are not fishing camps, but modest and well concealed mansions, with docks and private services that keep them off the map. Police and other services maintain their privacy. It is an entirely different world than across the harbor in Sullivan or even in Bar Harbor itself. I've worked in these mechanisms as a chef, and it is very much a class division. Different education, different culture, different and secluded and by design. The wealthy keep themselves at an arm's distance, and that really is what showed in this election. Romney didn't have the touch that some have managed, to build up ties to communities. Romney has flitted between communities as needs demanded. From Maine, to Mass to Utah, to Michigan, but he has always remained in the bosom of class, and separated from the hoi polloi.

It really is a quite different world for the top 10% even. The top 1%? They might as well be a different species in being able to understand the drives and needs of the folks who work for them.
 
2012-11-20 01:45:07 PM  

Carn: chuckufarlie: allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.

The problem isn't that they have a voice, it's that they are a very large percentage of what's left in the party. They've been purging and making themselves ideologically pure for almost two decades and they are just starting to suffer the consequences. Leeds is absolutely right in what they need to do to stay viable in the long term, I just think they've gone too far down the path of derp to be able to quickly turn it around. Then again, never underestimate the stupidity of people.


The reason that they are a large percentage of the party is because they have a voice and they have chased the moderates away.

Extremists are never viable, they do not represent a large enough group to get anything accomplished. Political demographics resemble a bell curve. Extremists make up a very small percentage of the population. That makes them pointless, except for the laughs

Extremists rarely turn "it" around. They would not be extremists is they were able to change.
 
2012-11-20 01:49:23 PM  

Saiga410: Loucifer: Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.

Romney was severly conservative? He was squishy and in the debates he agreed with all of Obama's stances and on a couple was to the left.

There has to be a conservative out there that is not a whackadoodle fundy but not a Romney/McCain.


Romney is a Massachusetts conservative. That means that in the rest of the country he would be a moderate liberal. He got the nomination because he was able to convince the real conservatives that he was one of them. All you need to do to appeal to real conservatives is to take their stance on certain "religious issues".
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 01:56:30 PM  

mcreadyblue: Don't count the Repubs out just yet.

I think 8 years of Obama will cause a Democrat backlash in 2016.

Throw in another financial crisis and you have a Repub victory.


or so you hope. Which is kind of sad to think you hope for it. TEAM USA
 
2012-11-20 02:28:14 PM  
Does anyone with half a brain really believe that there are far right-wingers who didn't vote for Romney because he wasn't Conservative enough? Where was their vote going, if so? Those people are so scared of the "black muslim socialist" you better believe they held their noses and voted for Romney. He swung to the centre (or tried to) to bring in the moderates, who he *didn't* have locked up.

How can anyone not realize this?
 
2012-11-20 02:39:47 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: YoungSwedishBlonde: STOP F*CKING INSINUATING THAT THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS EVERYTIME YOU ASSHOLES LOSE AN ELECTION.

Truth is that they offer their own handouts, but they're only for the super rich and those people don't get the 1 million votes apiece that they rightfully deserve to balance out all the poor people who don't do anything to deserve their votes.

or some such dumbass logic.


Basically this.

Anytime they whine about handouts to college students, poor people, and the elderly, I just think of the handouts they support giving to folks like multinational corporations, the rich, oil and coal companies, defense contractors, etc.

Then I can't help but get angry at the sheer hypocrisy of the whole thing.
 
2012-11-20 03:10:24 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: Holocaust Agnostic: To moderate OS actually a reasonable diagnosis. He had to sprint right in the primary and then sprint back. It made him out to be a flip flopper and he was never able to stake out a clear position or sound earnest about anything. I suspect that someone to the right of him would have lost by a substantially smaller margin.



I disagree with that assessment. I think Romney's relative moderation did make it a pain to go through the primaries of an increasingly extremist party, but a Santorum or Bachmann candidacy would've been absolutely slaughtered in the general election. From the getgo, even with all of his flaws, Romney was easily the most likely to beat Obama.... and he still lost.

I don't think Romney looked like a flip-flopper because he had to move from positions stated in the primary to positions that sit well in the general... it's that he had no real spin involved. Say one thing that contradicts a previous/statement position? "No I didn't say that" seem to be his only excuse. And those flip-flops weren't just limited to his presidential run, but pretty much his entire career; this all totaled up into a picture of either someone that cannot be trusted or someone that doesn't know, or care, about the position he is currently upselling.

A far right candidate probably would've been more consistent on their message, which probably would've lead to a more excited base... but it would be a small, excited base that would've excited Obama's base even more.


dehehn: UberDave: unlikely: Starting?

That's what I cam here to say. They started going berserk at about 10pm (CST) a couple of weeks ago.

No they started in 2007 during the primaries when they said McCain was too moderate. They conveniently forget that both McCain and Romney abandonded all of their moderate ideals to win their support in those primaries, losing all of their moderate credibility in the process. We'll never know what a true moderate race would have looked like because moderate Republicans can't get through the current primary process.

Had Jon Huntsman won by sticking to his moderate guns, I bet he would have beaten Obama pretty handily. Especially since he isn't a robber baron who shiats on half the country as moochers.


Just wanted to emphasize that Romney was not "easily the most likely to beat Obama" that would go to Mr. Huntsman. Otherwise, well done Mr. Collapse.

I still firmly believe Huntsman would have won with the current cultural/political/economic environment quite handily. But crazy conservatives held it against the guy that he spoke Mandarin fluently - that's the kind of party they have, where speaking the language of the most important rising power in the world is considered a defect.
 
2012-11-20 03:25:37 PM  

alaric1224: I still firmly believe Huntsman would have won with the current cultural/political/economic environment quite handily. But crazy conservatives held it against the guy that he spoke Mandarin fluently - that's the kind of party they have, where speaking the language of the most important rising power in the world is considered a defect.


And that warms my heart. The GOP, to give it a boost, adopted the bigots, the freaks, and the conspiracy nuts - the political Tafurs, as I like to call them - to use as shock troops for the 2008 election. By 2010, they had taken over the GOP - teabaggers were now in Congress. By 2012, the GOP wanted to distance themselves from these gut-eating morons, but it was too late. The teabaggers now own the GOP. They pissed all over the only possibly electable moderate GOP candidate, Jon Huntsman, while pushing their own horrid spawn - and because they couldn't agree on a single horrid spawn (each subgroup has its own ax to grind, after all), they ended up not with the best, but with the least objectionable, candidate.

Mitt "Political Windsock" Romney.

A man congenitally unable to express the simple truth about anything. A disingenuous used car salesman, whose best skill was averaging opinions together until he could say something that sounded blandly amicable to both sides of an argument, not to mention a reasonable talent for belittling "the common man" and dodging questions.

Of course the extremists are claiming that lack of purity, of monomaniacal purpose, is what felled them - because that's what felled them. That's not what felled the GOP, though. The seeds of that failure were planted years ago, when the GOP decided to embrace the Tafurs and push their Crusade. The Crusade failed, and the Tafurs are eating the dead.
 
2012-11-20 04:42:29 PM  

tagkc: Someone should let them know that if their candidate had the backing of God, God has turned his back on them.... Just sayin'


I'm sure people have told them as such. They probably counter by suggesting that it is a test by God. He wants the Republican Party to regroup and focus more on their core principles.
 
2012-11-20 05:37:41 PM  
Yes, make the 2014 and 2016 elections all about more conservatism.
 
2012-11-21 10:03:54 AM  

DRFS Rich: Does anyone with half a brain really believe that there are far right-wingers who didn't vote for Romney because he wasn't Conservative enough? Where was their vote going, if so? Those people are so scared of the "black muslim socialist" you better believe they held their noses and voted for Romney. He swung to the centre (or tried to) to bring in the moderates, who he *didn't* have locked up.

How can anyone not realize this?



Right wing extremists apparently have less than half a brain. On some level they know what you're saying is true, but they're in denial. Admitting that they're too far to the right for this country would ruin them, and they're not moving farther to the left.
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report