There is a sweet little line that we constantly hear from Talk Radio/Tea Party wing of the GOP. It goes like this: "Conservatism wins everytime. Only RINOs lose elections. We are not going to listen to the Establishment anymore who told us that Romney was electable."
There are so many falsehoods in this line of belief it is hard to know where to start.
1. Was Ronald Reagan a "conservative"? I think so, but have you ever researched his record in California? He was far, far, far to the left of Chris Christie or Romney or any of the other "RINOs". FAR! He record as President wasn´t much more ideologically clean (amnesty, raising taxes 11 times, blowing up the federal debt, increasing the size of government - to list a few).
Were Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes conservative? I don´t think any Tea Party member would look to fondly on the Bushes in particular. But I think you get the point. The little one-liner sounds good only when you limit the scope in time to the past two elections.
2. Just because a candidate is electable, doesn´t mean that he is guaranteed to win. It only means that he could win. This is a fairly easy concept to understand, yet it seems to slip through the mental grasp of many around here.
3. So is the lesson we are supposed to learn that Rick Perry would have been elected, but not Romney? Please give me a name of a "conservative" that would have won in 2012. I think Tim Pawlenty would have had a chance. But I would have said that before he dropped out. Beyond that, there wasn´t much.
4. There are a whole host of factors outside the candidate´s ability that determine an election. For example, given the growth of economy at the time of the election, it would have been difficult for Romney to have won. There has been a lot of research on this topic. I am not saying that Romney is relieved of any responsibilities. In fact, I would go as far to say that Romney was a slightly poorer candidate that I anticipated. However, he was still the only electable Republican running and the conditions that he inherited made it difficult for him to win.
5. If Romney was not electable, why did we see some polls show him winning at various times before the elections? And why did we see polls showing him winning now? We shouldn´t take one poll as proof, but with Romney we have a mound of evidence that he was the candidate that would come close to beating Obama. This is called empirical evidence and Republicans would be wise to use it.
There are so many falsehoods in this line of belief it is hard to know where to start.
1. Was Ronald Reagan a "conservative"? I think so, but have you ever researched his record in California? He was far, far, far to the left of Chris Christie or Romney or any of the other "RINOs". FAR! He record as President wasn´t much more ideologically clean (amnesty, raising taxes 11 times, blowing up the federal debt, increasing the size of government - to list a few).
Were Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes conservative? I don´t think any Tea Party member would look to fondly on the Bushes in particular. But I think you get the point. The little one-liner sounds good only when you limit the scope in time to the past two elections.
2. Just because a candidate is electable, doesn´t mean that he is guaranteed to win. It only means that he could win. This is a fairly easy concept to understand, yet it seems to slip through the mental grasp of many around here.
3. So is the lesson we are supposed to learn that Rick Perry would have been elected, but not Romney? Please give me a name of a "conservative" that would have won in 2012. I think Tim Pawlenty would have had a chance. But I would have said that before he dropped out. Beyond that, there wasn´t much.
4. There are a whole host of factors outside the candidate´s ability that determine an election. For example, given the growth of economy at the time of the election, it would have been difficult for Romney to have won. There has been a lot of research on this topic. I am not saying that Romney is relieved of any responsibilities. In fact, I would go as far to say that Romney was a slightly poorer candidate that I anticipated. However, he was still the only electable Republican running and the conditions that he inherited made it difficult for him to win.
5. If Romney was not electable, why did we see some polls show him winning at various times before the elections? And why did we see polls showing him winning now? We shouldn´t take one poll as proof, but with Romney we have a mound of evidence that he was the candidate that would come close to beating Obama. This is called empirical evidence and Republicans would be wise to use it.
17 comments:
Exactly, and well said.
-Martha
Don't worry yourself about the likes of RWN. He's just an amateur.
"It goes like this: "Conservatism wins everytime. Only RINOs lose elections. We are not going to listen to the Establishment anymore who told us that Romney was electable.""
Well, we do have a better overall track record than Moderates. And yes, we did give you two establishment candidates in a row and you blew it, so no, we are no so foolish to listen to more of your tired old non-sense.
And of course this is OhioJoe, the Dem swinging *independent*
Actually the statement "we did give you two establishment candidates" is factually incorrect. The voters from within our own party did by casting their votes for the candidate they wanted to win and run in the general election.
" The voters from within our own party did by casting their votes for the candidate they wanted to win and run in the general election." Yes, it back-fired!
OJ, I'd like to know just who you think could have done better in 2012. Not even the people who were encouraged to run like Christie, Ryan, Daniels, or Rubio would have done any better than Mitt.
Perry? lol. Bachmann? Cain? Newt? Don't make me relive the horror of that clownish cast of characters.
-Martha
It's OJ, the swing Dem indy, so, by definition, don't worry about it.
I do not know what in the world a swing Dem Indy is, but hey.
Well Martha, perhaps the other cast of characters were not do much better than Mr. Romney, but the would not do a whole lot worse either. The fact is, that as a whole, we as a party were told that Mr. Romney could win for us and that moderate GOP senate candidate would also win for us. There was an old saying about fool me once, fool me twice. Hey, many of us did not support, Mr. Romney in the primary as well as other characters because we were not fooled. However, we voted GOP in the general election. Don't expect us to waste our time again.
I had been saying for years that Romney would lose. And he did. Nothing more need to be said.
RW, that's a terribly weak response to Pablo, and just proves his point.
Who would have done any better than Mitt Romney in 2012. No one.
Now that the world has finally faced the reality that Obama cheated and lied his way to re-election, maybe the GOP will do better in 2016. I always said the only thing that can change our fortunes will be something catastrophic. Maybe we have it, maybe not. But now we know that if not for the lies, Romney would have won. He was not a weak candidate at all. He was also not a moderate or a RINO. That is a lazy and false meme.
-Martha
Ha ha. Okay, maybe the whole world hasn't faced reality yet, but some people are seeing things a little clearer now. The pocketbook can do that for you. lol
-Martha
Martha, It's the only response needed. He lost. Just as always believed he would. End of story.
RW, okay. Maybe like me, you knew Obama would cheat and lie. But I still believed Romney had a shot, and the polls showed that. So it was not a foregone conclusion, and you haven't said if you think someone else could have done any better.
-Martha
The independents, who swing dem on min, GOP the next, don't worry about them. So by definition, don't worry about the Ohio Joe's.
It's always fun when RWN comes out to play. The drugs must really make his world look great, as I'm sure he thinks if Palin would have only ran... she would have won in a land slide. (except all thinking GOP's - the MAJORITY would have wrote in someone else.)
Ellie
It is always great to get advice from "Real Conservatives" like Pablo, RomneyMan & Ellie.
Pablo is just a snooty little know-it-all punk who lectures and talks down to all who disagree with him while promoting RINO losers like Huntsman and David Frum. He also NEVER criticizes Democrats (still waiting for that first blog post criticizing Democrats Mr. Conservative) and is too chicken shit to respond to people who challenge him like RW.
RomneyMan claims he's a HUGE Conservative who just happens to do nothing but trash them in his Obama and Clinton love fest as well as take just great joy in GOP loses.
Ellie is nothing but a hate-filled cow who actually votes for Democrats while claiming to be a Conservative. How does it feel to be such a vile and repulsive pig, Ellie?
What a bunch of losers!
Signed,
Pablo Sucks
Post a Comment