Romney Was Not the Problem

[OldRegular]

Romney Was Not the Problem
Ann Coulter
Political Commentator

Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.

But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”

There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was “a weak, moderate candidate” is preposterous.

Even newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas complained that Romney failed to get across that there are “two viewpoints and directions for the country” and that he erred by trying to “be a nice guy.” As Cruz said, “I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama” in the third debate — proving once again that comedy is harder than it looks.

The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too “nice” is also nonsense. If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a lot more elections.

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama’s second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan’s example is worth studying.

In Reagan’s one debate with Carter in 1980, he presented “two viewpoints and directions for the country” by vowing to save Medicare and not to cut taxes too much. Loud and clear, Reagan said: “My tax cut does not come close to eliminating [Carter's] $86 billion increase. I’m only reducing the amount of the increase.”

Reagan picked a pro-choice, anti-supply side Republican as his running mate. He lavishly praised FDR in his acceptance speech at the national convention, leading The New York Times to title an editorial about him “Franklin Delano Reagan.”

Meanwhile, Romney promised to institute major reforms to Medicare, repeal Obamacare and impose a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. He said he’d issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare on his first day in office. (Why he didn’t promise it to all 57 states I’ll never know.) He chose a pro-life, fiscal conservative as his running mate and never praised FDR.

A careful analysis of the Romney plan thus reveals several deviations from the Democratic platform — more stark than those delineated by even Reagan.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/21/romney-was-not-the-problem/#ixzz2CvK6IILe

Coulter is correct! Romney was not the problem. The problem was those who were too lazy to get out and vote against Obama and for Romney. They are just as trifling as the ones who voted for Obama!

Romney got fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. It is a disgrace to the Republic and the Republican Party!

 

[SolaSaint]

I still say too many evangelicals wouldn't come out to vote for a Mormon, at least that is a big part of why he lost. No one is saying this...why?

 

[Salty]

I still say too many evangelicals wouldn't come out to vote for a Mormon, at least that is a big part of why he lost. No one is saying this...why?

and add to that the Libertarians / and far right wings who voted for a third party. Obama had only 51.42% of the vote. Romney had 48.57 - thats just a difference of 2.85%. Of course, I concede that Obama won - but not by landslide as mentioned by some liberal broadcasters.

With non-voting evangelicals not voting and the libertarian/extreme right wingers voting for 3rd party;had they all voted for Romney, we would see a transitional staff working hard.

Oh, lets get to work for 2016...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think we often overestimate the power of the Christian voting bloc in the blue states. Are they any stats to show that they could have changed enough of the key electoral states to reverse the election?

In addition it is just possible that this election turned out exactly way God wanted it to.

 

[saturneptune]

Oh, lets get to work for 2016...

That is the best advice I have seen in a long time. Now is the time to get involved and work for a decent candidate in both parties. It is not at the start of 2016 when the primaries are upon us again. We need to emphasize our message, Constitutional standards, economic growth, jobs, protected borders, equal opportunity for all, limited government, a strong defense, energy independence, standing by our true allies, moral values, etc. One thing that we do need to do is spread the message to all races, ethnic groups, creeds, etc. We need to take the debate to every state, and early on. If one remembers, Reagan carried every state but Minnesota, and Nixon carried every state but MA. One thing that is very important is to present candidates that have common sense, and know how to talk to the people. The Republican candidates in Missouri and Indiana putting their foot in their mouth cost us two seats in conservative states and the control of the Senate.

We need to focus on reality and stop worrying about the Mayan calendar, global conspiracy theories, and UFO invasions.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I think we often overestimate the power of the Christian voting bloc in the blue states.

Some seem to think that all Christians are going to vote as a block for the GOP. Will never happen. And, yes you are correct lots of folk overestimate the power of the Christian voting block ... as there really is no block. There may be a block of fundamentalists, but they do not represent all Christians.

On the OP ... Ann's attitude is not going to win any new friends for the GOP and may well drive a few away. Additionally, she did not address the root problem the GOP faces ... and I do not think she will as she is in denial.

Well, let's give her a little break. She has columns to write and deadlines to meet. So .......

 

[OldRegular]

I still say too many evangelicals wouldn't come out to vote for a Mormon, at least that is a big part of why he lost. No one is saying this...why?

I have said it but I doubt it will be said by anyone with a national audience. Perhaps because they don't want to admit the truth! There were some supposed evangelicals on this forum who had diarrhea of the mouth spouting why evangelicals should not vote for Romney!

 

[SolaSaint]

I still stick to my original position, the GOP is fragmented and the DNC isn't. They will always surround their candidate because they don't demand certian qualities in their candidates. The GOP however always has several factions that must have a candidate that meets each of their positions (must be a Christian, pro-life, etc.)

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I have said it but I doubt it will be said by anyone with a national audience. Perhaps because they don't want to admit the truth! There were some supposed evangelicals on this forum who had diarrhea of the mouth spouting why evangelicals should not vote for Romney!

Oh brother.

I guess there were supposed smart people on this board who thought Romney would do something stop abortion.

 

[OldRegular]

and add to that the Libertarians / and far right wings who voted for a third party. Obama had only 51.42% of the vote. Romney had 48.57 - thats just a difference of 2.85%. Of course, I concede that Obama won - but not by landslide as mentioned by some liberal broadcasters.

It is amazing how concerned these lying leftists are for the GOP since the election! Never listen to the guy who tinkles down his leg but bet he is also concerned.

With non-voting evangelicals not voting and the libertarian/extreme right wingers voting for 3rd party;had they all voted for Romney, we would see a transitional staff working hard.

Oh, lets get to work for 2016...

An old saying: "Marry n haste, repent in leisure." Well these folks have "four more years" to repent. And the deserve exactly what they will get!

 

[OldRegular]

I still stick to my original position, the GOP is fragmented and the DNC isn't. They will always surround their candidate because they don't demand certian qualities in their candidates. The GOP however always has several factions that must have a candidate that meets each of their positions (must be a Christian, pro-life, etc.)

That makes the Republicans "The Stupid Party". We saw this big time in 1964 when the "Rockyfeller Republicans" sucked their thumbs and we got LBJ, Viet Nam, and Mediscare!

 

[OldRegular]

I think we often overestimate the power of the Christian voting bloc in the blue states. Are they any stats to show that they could have changed enough of the key electoral states to reverse the election?

In addition it is just possible that this election turned out exactly way God wanted it to.

That is what worries me most! And the question on every Christian's mind should be, WHY?

 

[OldRegular]

That is the best advice I have seen in a long time. Now is the time to get involved and work for a decent candidate in both parties. It is not at the start of 2016 when the primaries are upon us again. We need to emphasize our message, Constitutional standards, economic growth, jobs, protected borders, equal opportunity for all, limited government, a strong defense, energy independence, standing by our true allies, moral values, etc. One thing that we do need to do is spread the message to all races, ethnic groups, creeds, etc. We need to take the debate to every state, and early on. If one remembers, Reagan carried every state but Minnesota, and Nixon carried every state but MA. One thing that is very important is to present candidates that have common sense, and know how to talk to the people. The Republican candidates in Missouri and Indiana putting their foot in their mouth cost us two seats in conservative states and the control of the Senate.

We need to focus on reality and stop worrying about the Mayan calendar, global conspiracy theories, and UFO invasions.

Very well put S/N!

 

[OldRegular]

Oh brother.

I guess there were supposed smart people on this board who thought Romney would do something stop abortion.

And your point is???????

 

[Bro. Curtis]

My point is, if you voted for Ronmey because of abortion, you were fooled.

If you can take a broad swipe at us, you should be ready for the roundhouse you recieve back. You turned every thread into a discussiomn of your elevated Christian position by throwing abortion around. Now you don't want others to do it ?

Your "diarrhea of the mouth" comment makes you look petty.

 

[OldRegular]

My point is, if you voted for Ronmey because of abortion, you were fooled.

That was only one of a dozen or so reasons I voted for Romney. I am not so naive that I believe any president can do much about abortion. I do know that the democrat party is the party of abortion. Abortion is in their platform, abortion was glorified at their convention. That is the sad truth.

On the other hand the Republican Party has been consistently against abortion since 1980. I would not argue that all Republicans are pro-life. Some are not but the bulk of the Republican Party is pro-life.

If you can take a broad swipe at us, you should be ready for the roundhouse you recieve back. You turned every thread into a discussiomn of your elevated Christian position by throwing abortion around. Now you don't want others to do it ?

If you got caught by the broad swipe so be it, but, your so-called "roundhouse" missed the mark completely!

Your "diarrhea of the mouth" comment makes you look petty.

If the shoe fits wear it. If it pinches that is tough!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

.

On the other hand the Republican Party has been consistently against abortion since 1980....

Baloney. Pure baloney.

If you got caught by the broad swipe so be it, but, your so-called "roundhouse" missed the mark completely!

I don't think it did, or you wouldn't have responded like you did. You put up a dud. someone not conservative, at all. If a conservative ran on the GOP bill, I would have voted for him.

If the shoe fits wear it. If it pinches that is tough!

I wear it just fine. I'm proud of my vote. Questioning whether or not that makes me "evangelical" ? That's below the belt. You should knock that stuff off. You supported a loser, and he lost.

 

[OldRegular]

Baloney. Pure baloney.

Baloney trumps bull anytime!

I don't think it did, or you wouldn't have responded like you did. You put up a dud. someone not conservative, at all. If a conservative ran on the GOP bill, I would have voted for him.

Yeah! Yeah! We have all heard that before!

I wear it just fine. I'm proud of my vote. Questioning whether or not that makes me "evangelical" ? That's below the belt. You should knock that stuff off. You supported a loser, and he lost.

Fellow what are you puffing on. I said nothing about your religion. But again if the broad brush slapped you up side the head then that is your problem. I have heard it said that a guilty conscience needs no accuser!

 

[AresMan]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/21/romney-was-not-the-problem/#ixzz2CvK6IILe

Coulter is correct! Romney was not the problem. The problem was those who were too lazy to get out and vote against Obama and for Romney. They are just as trifling as the ones who voted for Obama!

Romney got fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. It is a disgrace to the Republic and the Republican Party!

It is a disgrace that the RNC keeps expecting us Christians to fall in lockstep and vote for their RINO's.

The Mormon thing didn't concern me one bit. The problem for me was that Romney was so obviously pro-choice and socialistic in Massachusetts.

Sorry, if I know someone will put his hand on the Bible and swear before God and country to defend and uphold the Constitution... and already plans to lie under oath and violate it, I will NOT even entertain the idea of gracing that person with my vote... EVER.

I do not support oath-breaking before God. I will not support someone who makes fun of the Constitution. I don't care what election it is or what party it is. I don't care if the person is nominally "conservative" either. If someone will not take the oath of office seriously and submit to the chains of the Constitution (and its obvious original intent), I don't care if the person is otherwise a fundamentalist Christian, I will not support willful breaking of an oath before God.

THAT is Biblical.

 

[AresMan]

and add to that the Libertarians / and far right wings who voted for a third party. Obama had only 51.42% of the vote. Romney had 48.57 - thats just a difference of 2.85%. Of course, I concede that Obama won - but not by landslide as mentioned by some liberal broadcasters.

With non-voting evangelicals not voting and the libertarian/extreme right wingers voting for 3rd party;had they all voted for Romney, we would see a transitional staff working hard.

Oh, lets get to work for 2016...

If Christians keep voting for RINO's like Romney, do you think the RNC would ever back a truly conservative candidate anymore?

Think about it.