Deconstructing the Romney Campagin and what went wrong.
Where exactly did the Romney campaign go wrong? Was there anything ever right with it to begin with? It was everywhere and in between. Even though Obama was the incumbent president, he was more beatable now then four years ago. He couldn't run on his record, so he had no choice but to go on the offense against Romney. Obama's campaign was about class warfare and using Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals on Romney, The blueprint was simply to isolate, polarize, stigmatize and make it personal against Mitt Romney. Back during the 2008 president campaign, a black gentlemen at a John McCain rally pleaded with McCain to be aggressive in attacking Obama. McCain said that they had nothing to fear if Obama became president, and that Obama would be a good president, but he himself would make a better one. The Republican Party has become a party of chumps. That's one of the main reasons I am no longer one. The GOP does not know how to aggressively fight Democrats. Democrats always show up to a political street fight with knives and guns, while the GOP shows up with over weighted boxing gloves. It was stupid for the the GOP to believe that they could run a traditional feel good campaign against the Chicago-Daley machine where lying and bare knuckle politics is mandatory if you are a Democrat. I'm not buying into the noise that the reason Obama won was due to the turnout of minority, women and young voters. It's already been stated that the turn out was LESS then it was in 2008. So what does that say? It's very interesting actually.
These are the vote totals from the 2008 election
Obama received 69,446,897 votes
McCain received 59,934,814 votes
But in 2012
Obama received 59,925,396
Romney received 57,245, 739
This shows that clearly the bloom was off the Obama rose from four years ago. Over ten million fewer people voted for Obama the second time around for Obama, and Romney received over two million few voters then who voted for McCain. If Romney could have exceeded the McCain turn out, the election results may have been different for him. Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics posted a story entitled "The Case of the Missing White Voters". Eight million fewer white voters voted in this election. It was reported over the last few years that Obama was losing major support among white voters, so it does make sense why Obama had such a huge drop off from 2008. So as much as the chattering class wants to make issue about the minority turnout and the GOP, it really would have been small if the same amount of whites voted then in 2008. I've said as did others last year around the beginning of the GOP primaries that Romney would have a problem energizing the conservative base. The rule of politics is to 1. Capture your base 2. Expand your base 3. Win over independents to get the majority. The Romney camp just assumed that it had conservatives and the Tea Party vote locked up, it didn't, because they didn't like Obama. I've talked to conservatives who told me that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Obama. To a certain degree, they were right. So if others also believed that on the right, what was the incentive to get energized about Romney?Conservatives were doubting whether Romney would indeed repeal Obamacare if he won. Other issues with Romney was that he focused way to much on saying he would create jobs. He never spent any time talking about how bad Obamacare would be once fully implemented. That should have been one of the core issues of his campaign. Gas Prices and inflation should have been another, again barely touched. The strategy for the Romney team to not spend money early on in battle ground states was beyond dumb. They figured that Obama would spend most of his money early on, and he wouldn't be able to counter a last minute onslaught of Romney ads. The problem with that strategy is that Obama had months to create a false picture about Romney in those swing states. You only get a first chance to make a first impression. That is why people were so shocked at how good Romney did during his first debate. He came off as not appearing as the monster the Obama team depicted him as in their marketing campaign. Oh wait, I have one more to add. The Romney campaign actually suppressed it's own voters due to technical difficulties on election day with it's get out the vote system.
All of this doesn't matter now anyways, but it's best to learn from the mistakes of history so that they aren't repeated again in 2016.
These are the vote totals from the 2008 election
Obama received 69,446,897 votes
McCain received 59,934,814 votes
But in 2012
Obama received 59,925,396
Romney received 57,245, 739
This shows that clearly the bloom was off the Obama rose from four years ago. Over ten million fewer people voted for Obama the second time around for Obama, and Romney received over two million few voters then who voted for McCain. If Romney could have exceeded the McCain turn out, the election results may have been different for him. Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics posted a story entitled "The Case of the Missing White Voters". Eight million fewer white voters voted in this election. It was reported over the last few years that Obama was losing major support among white voters, so it does make sense why Obama had such a huge drop off from 2008. So as much as the chattering class wants to make issue about the minority turnout and the GOP, it really would have been small if the same amount of whites voted then in 2008. I've said as did others last year around the beginning of the GOP primaries that Romney would have a problem energizing the conservative base. The rule of politics is to 1. Capture your base 2. Expand your base 3. Win over independents to get the majority. The Romney camp just assumed that it had conservatives and the Tea Party vote locked up, it didn't, because they didn't like Obama. I've talked to conservatives who told me that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Obama. To a certain degree, they were right. So if others also believed that on the right, what was the incentive to get energized about Romney?Conservatives were doubting whether Romney would indeed repeal Obamacare if he won. Other issues with Romney was that he focused way to much on saying he would create jobs. He never spent any time talking about how bad Obamacare would be once fully implemented. That should have been one of the core issues of his campaign. Gas Prices and inflation should have been another, again barely touched. The strategy for the Romney team to not spend money early on in battle ground states was beyond dumb. They figured that Obama would spend most of his money early on, and he wouldn't be able to counter a last minute onslaught of Romney ads. The problem with that strategy is that Obama had months to create a false picture about Romney in those swing states. You only get a first chance to make a first impression. That is why people were so shocked at how good Romney did during his first debate. He came off as not appearing as the monster the Obama team depicted him as in their marketing campaign. Oh wait, I have one more to add. The Romney campaign actually suppressed it's own voters due to technical difficulties on election day with it's get out the vote system.
All of this doesn't matter now anyways, but it's best to learn from the mistakes of history so that they aren't repeated again in 2016.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 2:03 PM
17 Comments:
****Update: Obama wins Florida.
Candidate Popular vote Percentage Electoral votes (270 to win)
Barack Obama 61713086 51% 332
Mitt Romney 58510150 48%
Marc
So at this point, even if all those people would have come back again, Romney still would have lost. I was just a little bit closer this time.
This election reminded so much of O'Malley vs. Elhrich 2 in MD in 2010.
CB;"I'm not buying into the noise that the reason Obama won was due to the turnout of minority, women and young voters".
Still in denial, huh Tyrone? The "brainy-lacks" that ran the Romany campaign thought the same thing! Hopefully the Republican Party will continue to ignore the minority, women and young vote.
Think Tyrone...your argument makes no sense. If fewer whites are voting, and more minorities, women and young people are, wouldn't make sense to attempt to court their vote? What you're implying is that the Republican party should encourage more whites to vote, and vote for them.
So how does the republican party energize "white" voters? Do you really think the party that's already known for harboring racist should launch such an effort? How does the party of "white men" convince whites that they must turn out and vote, and vote for republicans? Are you Tyrone, as a black man, willing to advocate on behalf of "ANY" party, the need for more white people to vote?
With 70+ percent of the voting populace being white already, what kind of message could your black face send? Unfortunately, the republican party can't change or re-write history. The minority vote is what it is... the minority. Thus, courting the "white" vote would be like cheering for the wolf in the sheep's pasture.
p allen "
Still in denial, huh Tyrone? The "brainy-lacks" that ran the Romany campaign thought the same thing! Hopefully the Republican Party will continue to ignore the minority, women and young vote. "
Oh I am never in denial of reality, that's a progressive trait allen. You should know all about it. You must have overlooked the story I posted about 8 million fewer whites voted in this election. The Romney campaign is going to naturally blame other reasons other then itself for why Romney lost. The fact is what it is. Romney received over 2 million FEWER votes the McCain did four years prior, and those were white voters. Answer why Obama's vote total was lower this time around then McCain's four years ago allen. If minorities, women and the young vote are so ever growing, why did Obama receive 10 million FEWER votes then in 2008? I'm not gong to say that the GOP shouldn't always be looking to expand it's party, but this election lose was not factored to the voting demographics you mentioned. The only minority group that is worth going after is Hispanics, I will say that much.
p allen "
Think Tyrone...your argument makes no sense. If fewer whites are voting, and more minorities, women and young people are, wouldn't make sense to attempt to court their vote? What you're implying is that the Republican party should encourage more whites to vote, and vote for them. "
What can I say, I am just one of those crazy 1+1=2 kind of guys, you know? The first thing I would do is find out why the 8 million whites who voted in 2008 didn't vote this time around. If the GOP was to court Hispanics, they should do so to those who share the philosophy of the party not to change it's platform and make it a Democratic Party alternative with a R. If Hispanics who are open to the GOP message, then the GOP should make a play for them. The GOP is suppose to be a big tent party. I just say that they should not do an outreach because they feel a desperation to do so.
p allen "So how does the republican party energize "white" voters? Do you really think the party that's already known for harboring racist should launch such an effort?"
Are you saying that most white voters in the GOP are racists allen? Where is the evidence that the party is "harboring racists"? Since Reius Preius is the RNC Chairman, do you have any thing that points to him harboring racists? You keep talking about the GOP and racism allen, why don't you talk about blacks who voted for Obama mainly due to him being black. Then let's talk about racism. Toure of MSNBC who is black and a Democrat said yesterday that "The White House will continue to be black" what did that mean allen? As usual, you try to create a blanket generalization without ever providing specifics, furthermore you never turn the mirror of racism back toward the Democratic Party. This is why your charge against the GOP is without merit and it makes you look weak every time you try to bring it up allen.
p allen "Are you Tyrone, as a black man, willing to advocate on behalf of "ANY" party, the need for more white people to vote?"
I was talking about what it would have taken for Romney to have won the election, simple as that. It's no grand racial conspiracy behind my words allen. If the major voting demographic is white males to the GOP then it's obvious that without a turn out by them, the GOP candidate will lose, so they have to be energized to come out and vote, geez allen. The GOP can't just turn a facet and be filled with Hispanic and young people over night. It's going to take time, so until then, the have to win the way they have been and then adjust their strategy based on increased numbers of young people, single women and Hispanics.
p allen "How does the party of "white men" convince whites that they must turn out and vote, and vote for republicans?"
Easy, most people identify themselves as conservatives over moderates and liberals. That has been the results from the annual Gallup poll for years now. If more people and mainly whites identify themselves as conservatives, why would they want to come out and vote for a moderate candidate aka Romney, McCain, Dole Herbert Bush, Ford?
p allen "Are you Tyrone, as a black man, willing to advocate on behalf of "ANY" party, the need for more white people to vote?"
I as a black man am advocating for conservative candidates of any race to run and win office. I am not a partisan though I believe that blacks should be represented in all parties even the minor parties.
anon "said...So at this point, even if all those people would have come back again, Romney still would have lost. I was just a little bit closer this time.This election reminded so much of O'Malley vs. Elhrich 2 in MD in 2010."
Perhaps Romney would have still lost, but there were so many issues with his campaign that was debatable that were not up to snuff. To David Axelrod's credit, he knows how to run a campaign and organize a killer get out the voter ground game. You are right, Romeny's campaign did have the Elhrich second campaign feel to it. We knew it was there, but it wasn't making any waves. Frankly, Bob didn't run a good campaign the second time around.
Tyrone, you're not making sense. You've said fewer white voters turned out to vote...right? If you're making a point that "fewer white voters" turned out, what is your reason for making the assertion? Are you just saying it because it sounds nice?
The reason it's being noted that fewer whites turned out to vote, is because the republican party believes they could have had a chance of winning if they did. However, the fact is obvious. These voters were disengaged for this election. Be they of any racial background, democrats or republicans, they simply didn't believe their vote was worth casting for either candidate.
That still does not remove the fact that President Obama recieved the lions share of the minoirty, women and young peoples vote. My point is this... If the GOP wants to be competitive in presidential elections hence forth, they will need to earn a larger portion of the minoirty, women and young vote. If they wish to ignore the "FACTS", they will continue to lose....
Tyrone, according to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity , Dick Morris and the Karl "the architect" Rove, this election wasn't going to be close. Mitt Romney was supposed to win in a landslide in all the battleground states. Romney was supposed to even flip states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota and possibly Michigan. The House was supposed to gain a super-majority and the GOP was going to take the Senate. What kind of denial are you people in???
Do you actually believe that this race was lost because you didn't have a true conservative candidate? If you remember your own polls during the early part of 2012, said that Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and any other tea party favorite would lose handily to President Obama. Mitt Romney was deemed as the GOP's only real hope to win. This race was to be referendum on President Obama's performance.
America was in the eyes of the GOP faithful a center right to far right wing nation. Personhood at conception; self deportation; defense of marriage; and rolling back the traditional safety net were all ideals which your ilk felt America embraced overwhelmingly. A sane person would have to say that you people live in a delusional bubble.
Westley Williams "Personhood at conception; self deportation; defense of marriage; and rolling back the traditional safety net were all ideals which your ilk felt America embraced overwhelmingly. A sane person would have to say that you people live in a delusional bubble."
I thought liberals are suppose to be tolerant of other people's beliefs Westly. You sure don't sound very tolerant,lol. So what if people believe that life begins at conception. At the end of the day abortion is still the law of the land. The fear mongering to women that if Romney was elected, they would have to go into back alleys for abortion was just beyond low, but there were enough naive and gullible women who bought into. I guess lying and scaring people is only bad, when that targeted electorate actually discovers they are being played for stupid. The same way you look at people who believe life begins at conception are weird, those same people look at you as thinking killing unborn babies is fine especially partial birth and infanticide like Obama supports. I just thought about the whole life at conception argument. Sperm is alive, that is why they are called swimmers. So if the live sperm fertilizes an egg, then life does begin at conception or to put it a better way, the evolving of life begins at conception, anyways.
"Westley Williams said...
Tyrone, according to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity , Dick Morris and the Karl "the architect" Rove, this election wasn't going to be close. Mitt Romney was supposed to win in a landslide in all the battleground states. Romney was supposed to even flip states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota and possibly Michigan. The House was supposed to gain a super-majority and the GOP was going to take the Senate. What kind of denial are you people in??? "
Well Westly, you said "what kind of denial are YOU people in?? Lets start from ground zero. I meaning ME never said that Romney was going to win in a landslide, I didn't even say that Romney was gong to win. Furthermore, I never even endorsed Romney. I do remember saying last year that Romney wasn't a very strong candidate in the GOP Primaries Westley. My only mistake was when I doubted whether Romney could care the south. He won the southern states in this election. You need to read my archives sometimes. I've never been a fan of Karl Rove. I blamed Karl Rove as the reason why the GOP lost the 2006 midterms, because he was the architect of the liberal second term of Bush after the 2004 election, push for amnesty, new prescription drugs entitlement, advocating the United Arab Embarrasses port deal, continuing with the war in Iraq etc. Karl Rove is a Republican moderate strategist, so I have no love for him Westley, sorry. Rush Limbaugh to my knowlege never said that Romney was going to win in a landslide, he actually was questioning why Romney couldn't pull away from Obama for months leading up to the polls. He said based on the economy, Romney SHOULD be pulling away with the election. Do you even listen to Limbaugh Westley? Dick Morris and Karl Rove were the only ones who said Romney was going to win big. Hannity predicted Romney would win but it would be close and he said that on the day of the election. Do you listen? Also, Pennsylvania is not a flip state, when was the last time PA went red in a presidential election? Research it.
Westley Williams"America was in the eyes of the GOP faithful a center right to far right wing nation."
lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol You seriously need to not comment on politics. You represent the 80% which James Carville talke about Westley. Let me try to educate you. Conservatives outnumber liberals What you are as well as other liberals are missing is that if you look at the nation on a state by state level, most of the governorships are controlled by the GOP. They control 30 states which represents 60% of the country. Here's another interesting tidbit. Look at the states Obama won in this election, they are pretty much the same states he won in 2008 excluding North Carolina and Indiana. Look at the battle states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Hamshire. What do they all have in common besides going for Obama? They all have Republican governors and legislatures. If the nations saw the GOP as being some sort of far right fringe party, these states wouldn't have elected Republicans as governors. So much for that theory. Oh yeah, the GOP controls Maine and even New Jersey. So what that tells me is that it's not the party per say but the national candidate. The Senate is Democratically controlled by just four seats? Why do you think the 2010 midterm slaughter happened in the first place?
Andrew McCarthy over at National Review echoed exactly what happened on election day. The Voters Who Stayed Home He's also ignoring the lame explanation that the Romney lost was based on identity politics.
Andrew McCarthy "he key to understanding the 2012 election is simple: A huge slice of the electorate stayed home."
Andrew McCarthy "The punditocracy — which is more of the ruling class than an eye on the ruling class — has naturally decided that this is because Republicans are not enough like Democrats: They need to play more identity politics (in particular, adopt the Left’s embrace of illegal immigration) in order to be viable. But the story is not about who voted; it is about who didn’t vote. In truth, millions of Americans have decided that Republicans are not a viable alternative because they are already too much like Democrats. "
Since most people identify themselves as conservative in their ideology, why would they want to vote for a Democratic lite Republican Party? I did some research on a hunch. The talk has been that even McCain got more votes then Romney. That is true, but in the 2004 election, George Bush received 62 million votes. Bush received 3 million more votes in his re election total then Obama received his his. So there is a downward trend from the second term of Bush to McCain to Romney. Romney received 5 million fewer voters then Bush did in 2004. John Kerry received just over 59 million votes. Obama won his re election with nine hundred thousand more votes then Kerry lost to Bush by, turnout, turnout, turnout.
Rush Limbaugh to my knowlege never said that Romney was going to win in a landslide, he actually was questioning why Romney couldn't pull away from Obama for months leading up to the polls. He said based on the economy, Romney SHOULD be pulling away with the election. Do you even listen to Limbaugh Westley? <<<<<<<
Tyrone, my young friend, I started listening to Rush when EIB first broadcasted in your city in the Spring of 1990 on WCBM (the show flipped to WBAL before returning to WCBM). You probably were still attending school at that time. (You did say you were a young child looking at The Jefferson's just a few years before.) Anyway, I have followed Rush closer than most of my progressive contemporaries. I even bought a couple of his ugly ties he use to hack in the mid-90's. Rush is an entertainer who posses immense power over the GOP. I can remember him babbling about how Bob Dole was winning on election day 1996. No matter how buffoonish he is, your conservative brethren continue to support him no matter what he says or does.
BTW, Rush regularly said Romney would win by a landslide. Last Tuesday he was chattering that Michael Barone was some sort of great pundit and validated his claims that Romney would win by a landslide. It doesn't matter that Rush was wrong to you true believers. He's laughing all the way to the bank.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republican-will-win-a-landslide-says-rush-and-morris
http://www.examiner.com/article/republican-will-win-a-landslide-says-rush-and-morris
http://www.i4u.com/2012/11/his-romney-win-says-sense-rush-will-limbaugh-own-landslide-cites-common
Westley Wiliams posted "BTW, Rush regularly said Romney would win by a landslide. Last Tuesday he was chattering that Michael Barone was some sort of great pundit and validated his claims that Romney would win by a landslide. It doesn't matter that Rush was wrong to you true believers. He's laughing all the way to the bank."
Still trying to catch the coyote are you Westley? Do you have the exact quote Limbaugh made with Michael Barone? If so, post it. As for your links. I took a look at the Examiner's website, and I noticed that it DIDN'T give a quote in Limbaugh himself saying that Romney was going to win. It came to that conclusion based on Rush's show on election day. It merely linked to Limbaugh's transcript page. I went through the transcript, I didn't see where he said that "Romney is going to win the election period". Now I may have over read something, go over the transcript and read it for yourself, if you find him saying that, post and I will say that I am wrong.
What you fail to realize as others before you have tried to do and failed is to link all conservatives to Limbaugh. Rush isn't the pied piper of conservatism. I know you liberals have to think this in order to somehow validate yourselves being smarter then conservatives. He's a political commentator like others in his profession. I am a political commentator, the only difference is that I do not have show. Even if Limbaugh predicted Romney winning, it doesn't even matter, because I never predicted it. Matter, I was one of many who questioned Romney's strength back during the primaries. While Limbaugh was focusing on Romney supposedly leading among independent and the oversampling of Democrats in the polls, I was talking about whether Romney had secured his base. My next story I will post will once again prove me right yet again, stayed tuned.
Westley Williams " It doesn't matter that Rush was wrong to you true believers. He's laughing all the way to the bank."
I'm trying to get your point, which I don't think there is one Westley. If Romney would have won, would that have meant that he still wouldn't have been laughing all the way to the bank? From my thinking, I would assume that Limbaugh gets paid to give his thoughts, and nothing would have changed regardless of who won, duh. He was still getting paid when Obama won four years ago, so again do you have a point of some sort? I know political commentators on the left like Rachael Maddow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Joe Scarborough, Lawrence O'Donnell and others are also laughing to the bank correct?
Westley Williams "Tyrone, my young friend, I started listening to Rush when EIB first broadcasted in your city in the Spring of 1990 on WCBM (the show flipped to WBAL before returning to WCBM). You probably were still attending school at that time."
Actually I just started college.
Westley Williams"(You did say you were a young child looking at The Jefferson's just a few years before.)"
Actually, I do not recall saying that. FYI Westley, the Jefferson series ended in 1985. It's kind of hard to watch a show a few year back that wasn't even on the air, just saying.
Westley Williams "Anyway, I have followed Rush closer than most of my progressive contemporaries. I even bought a couple of his ugly ties he use to hack in the mid-90's. Rush is an entertainer who posses immense power over the GOP."
If you really think Limbaugh has power over the GOP, I seriously doubt that you really listen to him or maybe you hear what you want to hear. Limbaugh always talks about how the GOP has become less conservative. If he truly had power, the GOP wouldn't be moderate lead party as it is now. So how a person like you claims to have been a long time listener and even to this day still don't got it right is beyond me. Also Limbaugh is influential among conservatives not the GOP. The liberal talking point is that Limbaugh is "the defacto leader of the Republican Party", that's not true. He's known as the "defacto leader of the conservative movement".
Westley Williams"I can remember him babbling about how Bob Dole was winning on election day 1996. No matter how buffoonish he is, your conservative brethren continue to support him no matter what he says or does. "
Sorry Westley old chap, but it's not my job to defend nor attack Limbaugh. If he says something that I disagree with, I will make note of it. A few months ago, I was only a handful of conservatives who came out in support of Todd Akins in Missouri. Many conservatives and GOP establishment types both wanted him to resign over his rape comments. I went completely against conservatives. I have always been a conservative who is beholden to nobody. Point to where that isn't true Westley. You got your generalization about me down, but you can't back them up with specifics, but liberals can never do that anyways, so what else is new? For the record, I couldn't stand Bob Dole. He was a establishment type and not a conservative. If you have something proving Rush backed Dole, present it. I will call out Limbaugh for doing it if he did.
Also Limbaugh is influential among conservatives not the GOP. The liberal talking point is that Limbaugh is "the defacto leader of the Republican Party", that's not true. He's known as the "defacto leader of the conservative movement".<<<<<<<<
But isn't the GOP hostage to the "conservative movement"? Moderate influence vanished long ago. Forget about progressive Moderates cower in fear of being identified as a RINO. The two are the same and Rush influences them both. Sadly, for your ilk, the centrists of your Party will seize power.
If he truly had power, the GOP wouldn't be moderate lead party as it is now.<<<<<<<<<
You got to be joking! What would be a true right wing lead party? How would their platform be anymore further to the right than the current GOP platform? I'm not being opposistional Tyrone. I only wish to be enlightened.
BTW Joe Scarborough is a moderate conservative. Watch Morning Joe sometimes.
I've listened to Rush hundreds of times since 1990. I still do. That's how I knew I heard him say that the race wouldn't be close.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/05/everything_except_the_polls_points_to_a_romney_landslide
Westley Williams "But isn't the GOP hostage to the "conservative movement"? Moderate influence vanished long ago. Forget about progressive Moderates cower in fear of being identified as a RINO. The two are the same and Rush influences them both. Sadly, for your ilk, the centrists of your Party will seize power. "
LOL, LOL!!!! Are you saying that Reince Priebus who is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is a conservative? LOL LOL. Next you are going to tell me that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are conservatives as well. lol lol lol Toooooo funny!!!!! How can Limbaugh be the leader of the GOP if he is merely an entertainer?lol You are funny Westley, I'll give you that much.
Westley Williams "BTW Joe Scarborough is a moderate conservative. Watch Morning Joe sometimes. "
WTF!!!! a moderate conservative is as much of an oxymoron as gay marriage. Joe is a moderate NOT a conservative. If a person is liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal issues, they are libertarians. Joe has attacked Limbaugh and conservatives in general, so try again Westley.
Westley Williams "
You got to be joking! What would be a true right wing lead party? How would their platform be anymore further to the right than the current GOP platform? I'm not being opposistional Tyrone. I only wish to be enlightened."
Until you become an analytical thinker, you aren't in the position to enlighten anyone Westley, because all you are doing in spewing progressive talking points, and can only back them up based on your bias not fact. I don't know if you were ever a Republican or not but I as for a good length of time, so I have experience from being BOTH a democrat and a republican, and I know of what I speak when it comes to BOTH parties. Since I have experience, I can speak from experience thus I can enlighten based on experience.
How can Limbaugh be the leader of the GOP if he is merely an entertainer?lol You are funny Westley, I'll give you that much<<<
You can berate me, but the entire political landscape outside the conservative thought bubble feels the same way, Tyrone. The power of Rush Limbaugh on the GOP is stark and has been so for the last 20 years. Despite his massive failings and moral contradictions, he continues to feed you people his brand of political pabulum much in the way Charles Coughlin did his audience back in the 30's. The majority of his millions of listeners are "dittoheads" who embrace his conservative paradigm like a religion. Anytime Rush nuances the structure in regard to the events of the day, his followers fall in line. At no point over his rein has there been any major conservative leader to denounce him. To do so would have been political suicide. History will bear me out.
Post a Comment
<< Home