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 50
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-20 12:02:39 PM
4 votes:

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 10:46:16 AM
4 votes:

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 11:55:09 AM
3 votes:
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 11:43:45 AM
2 votes:

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 11:31:40 AM
2 votes:

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 11:22:17 AM
2 votes:
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 10:52:36 AM
2 votes:

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


When did we have 4 years of liberalism?
2012-11-20 10:48:06 AM
2 votes:

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 10:46:26 AM
2 votes:

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 10:26:02 AM
2 votes:

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 10:22:44 AM
2 votes:
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 10:19:19 AM
2 votes:
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 03:25:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:45:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:54 PM
1 votes:

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 12:49:09 PM
1 votes:

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 12:47:22 PM
1 votes:

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 12:12:02 PM
1 votes:

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 12:10:56 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:50 PM
1 votes:

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 11:59:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:40:13 AM
1 votes:
allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.
2012-11-20 11:37:04 AM
1 votes:
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 11:36:42 AM
1 votes:

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 11:30:46 AM
1 votes:

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


Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.
2012-11-20 11:27:25 AM
1 votes:
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 11:23:18 AM
1 votes:

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 11:15:41 AM
1 votes:
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 11:08:22 AM
1 votes:
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 11:06:05 AM
1 votes:

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


What?
2012-11-20 11:03:49 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:30 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:16 AM
1 votes:
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 10:58:05 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:16 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:02 AM
1 votes:

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 10:50:41 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:08 AM
1 votes:
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 10:37:20 AM
1 votes:
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 10:26:09 AM
1 votes:
Please proceed GOP
2012-11-20 10:26:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:53 AM
1 votes:
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 10:24:10 AM
1 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2012-11-20 10:23:18 AM
1 votes:
a.abcnews.com
Soon
2012-11-20 10:22:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:32 AM
1 votes:
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 10:03:10 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report