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  
•       •       •

2943 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report