Run. A. Better. Candidate. Next. Time.

[Big Don]

Run. A. Better. Candidate. Next. Time. What part of that is unclear to you? GOP; so much fail.

Had to steal your line, Bill.
We ran a better candidate this time than we did last time. In 2008 McCain somehow, despite less than lackluster support among republicans, got the republican nomination. Obama didn't run against McCain in 2008, he ran against George W. Bush, who, by the way, WAS NOT RUNNING.
In 2008 Obama also ran as, "Vote for me, I'm black, it will be historic" and somehow, voting for the Black guy, BECAUSE he is black, isn't racist...
In 2008 Obama ran on "Hope and Change", Well, things have changed, the US's credit rating was downgraded. In a single term he managed to accrue more national debt than in Bush's two terms, nearly double the amount Obama declared "Unpatriotic". He alienated our Israeli allies while sucking up to and even bowing to people, like the Saudi King, whose nation won't even allow women to drive, and still, he got the majority of women's votes.
This year the republicans Nominated Mitt Romney, a genuinely nice person, which, IMHO, is partly responsible for his loss last night.
While the Obama campaign, its surrogates and supporters claimed Romney was 1 A felon, 2 Killed a woman with cancer, 3 Cruel to animals, 4 out to ban contraceptives and all but, bring back chastity belts. What was the response of the Romney campaign? Did he "Hit back twice as hard?"
Nope. He took it.
He spoke about policies and his vision for our nation. He acted as the kind, honest man he is, and lost the presidency.

The name of this website is Martial Talk, most of us are martial artists of one stripe or another.
How many fights have ever been won without utilizing an offense?
Many of you are Football, or Basketball or Soccer fans. How many games have been won by a team that doesn't strive to win?
Admiral Halsey, in WWII had it right,

When in a fight, hit first, hit hard and hit often!

Governor Romney's campaign didn't follow Bull's sage advice, and they lost.
Until the Republican party runs a candidate who not only speaks about principles and ideals, but, is also willing to brawl, the Democrats will win.
Obama's reelection guarantees one thing, above all others: Four more years of blaming everything on Bush.

 

[K-man]

I offer without comment this piece from our local paper.

What did the loser offer? Who knows
PAUL MCGEOUGH


MITT Romney's bid for the US presidency failed because voters saw through him — as a candidate the man was a political chameleon.


On his second bid for the White House, Romney held nothing back — last week, a flip-flop; yesterday, a backtrack; today, a retreat; and tomorrow, a sidestep of what he had said last week or last year.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All I got out of the GOP campaign was "Vote for Romney, he sucks less." And that's not good enough to get my vote. As I've said over and over, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Frankly, it's over between me and the GOP. When they filed suit to keep Johnson off the ballot in Michigan, it showed me how much they fear having any other voices than their own heard. The GOP can bese mi ojo marrón, if you know what I mean.

But they might get further next time if they manage to find a decent honest person somewhere in that vast sea of mediocre crooks and banal liars.

 

[WC_lun]

Don, seriously, stop drinking the cool aid. This part is especially egregious rewriting of history, 'In 2008 Obama also ran as, "Vote for me, I'm black, it will be historic" and somehow, voting for the Black guy, BECAUSE he is black, isn't racist...' Go back and listen to what he said and did. He actually made it a point not to use his skin tone as a point in the campaign. He only addressed race when attacks about race got to a point he had to, and when he did he did not address it from a black perspective, but an American perspective. This type of BS is one of the reasons Mr Romney lost.

The biggest reason Mr Romney lost though was because it was apparent that he would say anything to be elected and let his surrogates say nonsense in his name. The American people want a presidential nominee to be for something. To believe in something. To take a stand for something. Mr Romney's campaign did not do this. Instead they ran as the anti-Obama. A majority of the American people, including the increasing number of non-whites, didn't buy into it. Since they didn't buy into it, they didn't elect him. They did not feel Mr Romney represented thier interest.


The Republican party needs to wake up. This country is a melting pot and they had better get used to politics not being the old white guy's club anymore. You cannot have far right fringe of the Republican party saying to the national media things that go against the interest of women and minorities and expect to have great success. There ARE conservative ideals that need to be represented in this government. That cannot be done by Republicans as long as a significent number of thier party act like they are trying to take this country back to the 1950's.

 

[Big Don]

Want to see actual racism? Look at how minority republicans, Mia Love, Condi Rice, Alan West, Jindal, are treated by "enlightened" liberals.

 

[crushing]

"as a candidate the man was a political chameleon."


That's what party primaries do to candidates. They must satisfy the party base to be considered for the general election. Without primary opposition Obama didn't have to worry about outflanking a party rival to the left, then make the move back towards the center for the general election. Romney's shift was awkward and this helped bring attention to it.

 

[WC_lun]

Want to see actual racism? Look at how minority republicans, Mia Love, Condi Rice, Alan West, Jindal, are treated by "enlightened" liberals.

really? I don't know anyone who thinks any less of these people because they aren't white. Could you provide some examples please? Why didn't you put Collen Powell in that list?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/obamas-hispanic-voters_n_2092492.html

Obama's Big Hispanic Voter Win In Presidential Election Worries Republicans
Posted: 11/08/2012 9:46 am EST
DENVER -- Omayra Vasquez blinks and does a double take when asked why she voted for President Barack Obama. The reason for her was as natural as breathing.

"I feel closer to him," said Vasquez, a 43-year-old Federal Express worker from Denver. "He cares about the Spanish people."

Millions of Hispanic voters seconded that emotion Tuesday with resounding 71 percent support for Obama, tightening Democrats' grip on the White House and putting Republicans on notice that they must seriously court the nation's largest minority group if they want to win the presidency again.

According to initial exit polls, Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who backed hard-line immigration measures, came away with 27 percent Hispanic support, less than any presidential candidate in 16 years and a sharp drop from the 44 percent claimed by President George W. Bush in 2004 after he embraced immigration reform.

This ^^^.

The GOP is going to have to change their tune, and their actions, on immigration reform, or they are going to become an also-ran, has-been party very quickly. McCain suffered because he supported immigration reform. He ended up flip-flopping to try to please the Tea Party, but it was too little, too late, they hated him for being 'soft' on immigration issues.

Like it or not (and many TP members do NOT like it), immigration reform is going to happen. They can soften their tone, or keep losing elections. And as the Hispanic population of the US increases (I am talking legal, voting, citizens), this is only going to expand.

 

[Big Don]

really? I don't know anyone who thinks any less of these people because they aren't white. Could you provide some examples please? Why didn't you put Collen Powell in that list?

Nope, not racist at all...

IDK what Powell is, but, he is no republican.

 

[billc]

Big Don, please, you know a democrat/liberal did that cartoon so it can't be racist.

 

[Master Dan]

No body wanted the job the first time best they could do was Sara and McCain? and this time was a joke a literal Gong Show the RNC is a mess and so is thier platform. I vote Republican if they are the best person but they have been a mess remember not long ago it was being touted Rush Limp Boo was head of the party.

This crap about it was Sandy or now we are at a tipping point more taker than makers? What the hell does Ann HARPY Coulter make what floor does she mop what thing does she build? I would like to see everyone like her moved to a seperate state and let them run it problem is they would want to take everything with them?

Your right come up with something better than a Pizza guy or a dunce?

 

[Steve]

Nope, not racist at all...

IDK what Powell is, but, he is no republican.

Negative? Sure. And in poor taste. But how is it racist? While I've seen negative, racist comparisons between African Americans and monkeys/apes. And I've seen cartoons comparing president Obama to both, I've never seen the African American/cockatoo connection before. I'm not saying it isn't racist, but I'm trying to understand and can't figure this one out. Just spell it out for me, if you would.

Edit: Okay, I did a quick google search for "racist political cartoons rice" and came up with three. A total of three. One is actually racist. It's the one depicting Dr. Rice as a house slave talking about aluminum pipe. The other two, a Doonesbury cartoon and the one above, are acknowledged even on the rightwing sites as not really racist, but just kind of mean. So, in all the years that Dr. Rice was Secretary of State, there was a grand total of... one... actual racist political cartoon. That's it. Hardly a trend.

Come on, guys. Let's all take a step away from the hate buffet. We're gorging ourselves on it, and it's killing the country. Tit for tat and a continuous stream of "yeah, but" is getting us nowhere.

Edit #2: Regarding Powell, he is a patriot, an independent thinker, a former National Security Advisor to Reagan, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under H.W. Bush and a Secretary of State under George W. Bush, not to mention a 4 star General in the U.S. Army having served with distinction for over 40 years. There was a time when he was in the wheelhouse of the Republican party. The fact that you would disown him now is more a testament to how far to the right the GOP has drifted, and how it has entirely lost its way.

 

[Flying Crane]

yeah, every time a Republican loses, they decided it's because he wasn't conservative enough. Makes me wonder what troll they will pull out from under a bridge next time. This just gets more and more amusing. That party is making itself more and more irrelevant.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

yeah, every time a Republican loses, they decided it's because he wasn't conservative enough. Makes me wonder what troll they will pull out from under a bridge next time. This just gets more and more amusing. That party is making itself more and more irrelevant.

If the GOP actually responds by pulling even harder to the right, yes, I suspect they will cease to be a major force in American politics. Which I believe would be a good thing at this point. Time for the GOP to go. The Democrats are next on the list, but first things first.

To be brutally honest, I left the GOP years ago, not because I changed my viewpoints, but because they changed theirs, and basically shoved everyone out who wasn't of the same ultra-conservative mindset. I had hoped that someday the GOP would return to a more traditional conservative viewpoint, but they have not, they have only moved even further to the right. If they cease to be, I will not shed a tear.

 

[Steve]

If the GOP actually responds by pulling even harder to the right, yes, I suspect they will cease to be a major force in American politics. Which I believe would be a good thing at this point. Time for the GOP to go. The Democrats are next on the list, but first things first.

To be brutally honest, I left the GOP years ago, not because I changed my viewpoints, but because they changed theirs, and basically shoved everyone out who wasn't of the same ultra-conservative mindset. I had hoped that someday the GOP would return to a more traditional conservative viewpoint, but they have not, they have only moved even further to the right. If they cease to be, I will not shed a tear.

Hear, hear.

 

[WC_lun]

Both Steve and Bill M have the truth of it in thier post.

 

[arnisador]

Want to see actual racism? Look at how minority republicans, Mia Love, Condi Rice, Alan West, Jindal, are treated by "enlightened" liberals.

West is nuts. Rice gets respect from all sides.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Obama ran to win. Romney ran to not lose. There's a difference.

Back when Kennedy ran (and won) the office, there were fears I hear that he would be little more than a puppet for the Pope. His being Catholic was supposedly a big deal back then. Romney's religion didn't really come to play from my perspective. Part of what sank him for me was his trying to appeal to every one approach. He was hampered by the idiots in his party (Akin for example) who literally helped paint the GOP as an anti-rights, anti-woman, bunch of Christian extremists. The idea that we could have a straight GOP powerbase in all 3 branches with enough votes to just shut out the Dems was worrysome. (The Dem superbase is how we got the abomination of Obamacare passed, unread).

In the end though he just wasn't different enough from Obama to gain the 3M votes needed to win. Out side of Ron Paul, he was probably the best the GOP could do, and that's sad. I don't foresee a strong GOP candidate in 2016 either.

Now, if Paul had run, things would have been different. Gary Johnson would have gained a lot less votes, and Goode a few more. I think ultimately though, Paul would have faired worse as his libertarian views are quite a distance from the current version of the GOP.

Personally, I think you need someone with the business smarts of a Bill Gates.

 

[Carol]

Obama ran to win. Romney ran to not lose. There's a difference.

Back when Kennedy ran (and won) the office, there were fears I hear that he would be little more than a puppet for the Pope. His being Catholic was supposedly a big deal back then. Romney's religion didn't really come to play from my perspective. Part of what sank him for me was his trying to appeal to every one approach. He was hampered by the idiots in his party (Akin for example) who literally helped paint the GOP as an anti-rights, anti-woman, bunch of Christian extremists. The idea that we could have a straight GOP powerbase in all 3 branches with enough votes to just shut out the Dems was worrysome. (The Dem superbase is how we got the abomination of Obamacare passed, unread).

In the end though he just wasn't different enough from Obama to gain the 3M votes needed to win. Out side of Ron Paul, he was probably the best the GOP could do, and that's sad. I don't foresee a strong GOP candidate in 2016 either.

Now, if Paul had run, things would have been different. Gary Johnson would have gained a lot less votes, and Goode a few more. I think ultimately though, Paul would have faired worse as his libertarian views are quite a distance from the current version of the GOP.

Personally, I think you need someone with the business smarts of a Bill Gates.

I actually don't think you need the business smarts of Bill Gates to understand that this Presidential election, like many Presidential elections in the past, have been decided by independent voters in the swing states. Gov. Romney made very little effort to attract these voters, and no attempt to distance himself from the rape-obsessed ultra-right.

I campaigned for Mitt Romney in his gubernatorial bid in 2002. I even had a chance to attend his inaugural ball. I'm very disappointed at his lack of attention to the swing voters in the swing states.

But, I'm sure he did everything the RNC wanted him to do. And he did about as good as the last candidate who did everything the RNC wanted him to do.

 

[billc]

the libertarians would get just as beaten as the republicans. Sure, they want legal drugs and gay marriage, but then get to the fiscal issues and they would be the people who want to kill old people by cutting off social security and medicare, they want poor people to die because they want to get rid of welfare. The libertarians delude themselves into thinking they would be any different than republicans when it came to attacks from the press, hollywood, the education system. They are just lucky their guys suck so much they can't get the 5% needed to get into the real battle. The democrats give stuff away and don't care how it is paid for. The libertarians don't believe in that. You'll say, there are a lot of libertarians in hollywood, sure, but once you get into the ring with the democrats, just like John McCain saw when he thought the press liked him, you will see that the democrat party comes before everything else.

Libertarians, do you believe in the government paying for abortions and birth control? No, you don't, so you hate women and are part of the republican war on women.

You believe in open borders, but not welfare...you want poor immigrants to die...you are racists, just like the republicans.

You don't believe in publicly funded education...you hate teachers, just like the republicans, even worse, at least they sometimes support vouchers, so you are even worse than republicans.

You believe in isolationism, hence, you would support cuts to the defese industry, you hate unions that work in that industry, you hate the blue collar wokers.

You did not support the federal bail out of the auto industry...need I even go on? You want the American auto industry to be destroyed, and you hate all the union workers who work in it...you big meanies...



The "Rape," issue was the media wing of the democrat party hyper focusing on two guys to help obama. Try having a liberal politician answer these ten questions about abortion and see how well they would do...

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=39003

Here are 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the
media:

1. You say you support a woman's right to make her own
reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any
restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist
featured a cover story on "the war on girls" and the growth of "gendercide" in
the world -- abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon
pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to
terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many
states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents' consent or
knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental
authorization. Do you support parental notification regarding abortion access
for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at
conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should
an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing
reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do
you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the "eugenics" movement a
century ago -- the slow, but deliberate "weeding out" of those our society would
deem "unfit" to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to
violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient
drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin
Luther King, Jr. has said that "abortion is the white supremacist's best
friend," pointing to the fact that African Americans and Latinos represent 25
percent of our population but account for 59 percent of all abortions. How do
you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in
inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe
abortion as a "tragic choice." If abortion is not morally objectionable, then
why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is
different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe
abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable -- able to survive
outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are
murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve
a harsher sentence?

Of course, even if they got a good flub on these questions by a liberal politician, they wouldn't focus on it, hype it and repeat it the way they did the two, two republican guys did.