Patterico's Pontifications

11/7/2012

A Commenter Opines on What Republicans Should Do Now

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 pm

Commenter dbnr weighs in with this eloquent argument:

I seldom comment here, but this is pretty much the only blog I ever comment on and I have a thought I want put out there about today’s Republican party.

I have heard several professional pontificators talk today about how this election calls into question the center-right nature of the Republic. I heard Bill Kristol tonight on Special Report with Bret Baier say Republicans need a younger face and a more effective voice for the conservative cause. Karl Rove said we’ve got to find a way to address issues that are important to Latino voters.

That all sounds nice, but that’s not transformational thinking. I think they’ve missed the forest for the trees. The issue is not that the nation has tilted to center-left. The issue is that the Republican Party is playing by the liberal view that rights are endowed by the state and we must advocate for the rights we believe Americans should espouse. As a result, the GOP is a party held hostage to the social values issues, and we no longer represent the majority on those social values.

I live my life by the conservative values that the Republican Party strives to represent. But my values are not endowed by the government; they are endowed by my Creator. And while my pursuit of happiness might be completely in line with conservative values, I reject the Republican Party’s belief that my pursuit of happiness is the path all Americans should pursue.

You want to expand the Republican party beyond the social-issue Republicans? Honor all Americans for their right to pursue their happiness in their own way. A majority Republican party will necessarily look a lot more libertarian. A majority of Americans no longer share my conservative values, but they do share my desire to pursue happiness without Federal Government intervention.

The Republican party is not in disarray. It’s very well organized and I think was well led by Mitt Romney. But if we hope to break out of what is apparently the new status quo (52/48 losses), we need to break the paradigm that accepts the idea elections are about voting for the guy who is going to get the government to make everyone else agree with me.

Once we grab the mantle of Liberty and abandon efforts to affect social change by infringing on others’ right to exercise their Liberty, we will once again be a majority party.

I think the Republican party should emphasize economic freedom and small government, which are core concepts that have wide appeal. Basically, we should be what the Libertarian party could be, if it were not run by kooks.

I recognize that there are issues where cultural conservatism clashes with libertarian attitudes. In those situations, I believe we should focus on those areas where many Americans can agree. For example: we might not agree on everything about abortion — but I bet you that most Americans think the government should not be funding it.

I’ll have more to say about that in future posts.

For now, I invite commentary on dbnr’s excellent comment. And let’s try to get this person to comment more!

546 Responses to “A Commenter Opines on What Republicans Should Do Now”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  2. The Republican party is not in disarray. It’s very well organized and I think was well led by Mitt Romney.

    Led to a well organized defeat. Again. And make no mistake, with Obama’s numbers based on previous data, the political science says he should have lost. Except he didn’t. Because the country has changed. And the GOP all but handed six or seven U.S. Senate seats over a few cycles because they nominated nutballs. The GOP should have the Senate. They don’t. Because the country has changed.

    The party has to change. The country clearly has.

    If there had never been a Reagan and Romney ran in ’80, he’d likely have won with the demographics and messaging of that era. But the party that messages in 2012 that the economics of the 1920′s, the social policies of the 1950′s and the foreign policy of the 1980′s light the path to a shinning city on a hill lost its second presidential cycle in a row. It’s doubtful a Reagan of 1980 could have made it throught the GOP orimaries of this era.

    The party has to change. To attract old friends– and young faces– who have left it to its past ‘glories,’ and moved… forward

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  3. Far too much of this supposed criticism of the GOP begins by assuming that Obama’s false characterization of what Romney / Ryan were about was true.

    And I reject that.

    SPQR (768505)

  4. that really is the best commentary I’ve read since last night’s fiasco

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  5. Well said dbnr.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  6. The Dems and the media (birm) definitely painted a false picture of the Republicans, but they can bring misery on themselves as well.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  7. I agree. I hear so much about the Democrats being the “party of choice.” I respond that the Democrats may be pro-choice on one issue, but the Republicans are pro-choice and the Democrats are anti-choice on a so many issues that affect everyone’s lives.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  8. MD in Philly copied this into the other thread:

    McCain got 59.9 million votes Obama got 69.4 million as of right now Romney got 57.7 million and Obama has 60.5 million. That is a drop of 2.2 million votes for Romney from McCain. Here is the kicker though. Of that 2.2 million 1.4 million is from California. The only swing state Romney didn’t outperform McCain in was Ohio. Obama on the other hand lost over 1 million voters in Swing states and the only state he did as well in as he did in 2008 was North Carolina.

    If you think about that and consider what that really means, I would assert that much of the “conventional wisdom” about what the GOP should do is largely wrong. Romney came very close to winning.

    We need to work on attacking the root of how Democrats successful misrepresentation of the issues of the last election. And we need to work on the key weakness that probably really was the cause of Romney’s defeat – weaker GOTV structure.

    We’ve run two cycles of presidential elections with the kind of “moderate” Republican candidates that conventional wisdom claims the GOP should run. I think we need better advocates of free market classical liberal values.

    SPQR (768505)

  9. We’ve run two cycles of presidential elections with the kind of “moderate” Republican candidates that conventional wisdom claims the GOP should run. I think we need better advocates of free market classical liberal values.

    Yup! Milton Friedman types.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  10. I agree that libertarian/conservative commenter dnbr should comment more often.
    In fact, we should legally require him to comment more often.

    (Ba-doom-pa !)

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  11. Well, better looking than that …

    And not David Friedman, sheesh, he’s not exactly made for TV …

    SPQR (768505)

  12. I’m with SPQR.

    And no one from the GOP side put any real effort into countering the Left’s narrative.

    flicka47 (aa627c)

  13. I am not so sure that Romney and his campaign did not frame their campaign as dnbr states at least close to these points. The media and demoncrats Fluked Romney at every turn possible and tried to make Republicans stayed framed in social issues.

    We have to recognize Republican are running against Democrats and the Media and they do a great job of gang banging Republicans. Romney’s campaign did a great job at answering back charges in less than 24 hours with good Internet adds. But Romney’s stump speeches stayed the same through out the campaign and never effectively attack the Media or Obama nor would the media have covered it if Romney did.

    We need a game plan that can run 2 against 1. Defense only will never beat the machine and media. I think Dennis Prager has it right we need to ask America if they want Socialism or Liberty and run that campaign.

    Sanmon (98e434)

  14. Several things, friends:

    1. It is clear that many folks who voted for McCain (or for Palin) stayed home this time. I have strong suspicions that it is all about “purity” or some weird “anti-Mormon” bigotry (my brother’s mother-in-law who is very conservative indeed, would not vote for a Presidential candidate this time, because her pastor said Romney was in a “cult”). We might have still lost if those folks who voted in 2008 had voted this time for Romney, but who knows?

    2. We need to quit being absolutists about social issues. I know that will upset people, but Akin and Mourdock cost us more than their Senate seats—they were Poster Boys for “what Republicans stand for.” Both Akin and Mourdock let their ego get in the way of the Big Picture.

    3. Right now, the DNC-MSM Alliance controls “teh Narrative.” They started early telling people, repeatedly, what Republicans were. Jokes on the Stewart show, etc. We were defeated by the media, friends. And they aren’t going away.

    4. Somehow, we need to be practical and transformational. We need to ask if we want to always lose and be “pure,” or be 80% pure and win. Right now, I have conservative friends who insist that a “true conservative” would have won handily. Look at Akin’s voting record; there are few more reliably conservative. And what happened to him?

    Face it or not. I don’t think I am wrong.

    So we need to do what Breitbart told us to do: co-opt the media. Tell our stories. The big conservative money guys need to create another source of news, like Fox, that tends to promote a conservative point of view (but not be weirdly over the top, like MSNBC).

    It’s time for a Conservative-Libertarian Coalition. Because we cannot and will not win with the kinds of “true conservatives” we are pushing.

    My opinion only. But I watched as the Left was able to create a whole Narrative about the Right, and Romney. I watched young voters buy it completely, because their only source of information was completely controlled by the MSM-DNC Alliance.

    Friends, we are bad trouble. Sure, I could be wrong. A superconservative person might be just what America is looking for…but you must admit that it didn’t look that way the other night.

    I’m not saying wishy-washy RINO. I am saying a hybrid of the conservative and libertarian agendas. This will become more and more important as the economy begins to cook down, and there are more and more assaults on personal rights.

    Sorry for the speech.

    Simon Jester (87d2bf)

  15. I agree, great commentary. And I agree with the sentiment that the GOP has to give up on making everyone live by their values. They have to lighten up just a bit. However…

    The demonizing of the GOP candidates by the Democrats was epic. There have been very few people on the Left that I have spoken to in the past two months that had anything positive to say about the President, but they were very well versed in the smears that were repeated over and over. The Conservative message could not be heard over that kind of hateful chatter. I may be wrong since it is so recent, but it appeared to be as bad as I have ever seen it.

    I thought it would be almost impossible to tear down such a fine person as Mitt Romney, but they succeeded by attaching every ridiculous comment said by any Republican directly to Romney. As I heard about new attacks (I don’t watch MSNBC any more) I was more and more surprised about how organized and focused their attacks were. “War on women”, “legitimate rape”, etc., etc.

    I am not suggesting that the GOP needs a better attack machine, but I do think that the answer to those charges were late, weak, and in some cases nonexistent.

    RCC (b31068)

  16. Patterico, nice call regarding Milton Friedman. Let’s have a reminder of how that man explained the facts of life to airy-fairy Leftists:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

    and (very appropriately):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

    So yes indeed. Bring me that kind of politician.

    Simon Jester (87d2bf)

  17. (stopping by)

    I’m in general agreement with dnbr, but I think some further shading is needed. Karl Rove is right about the Latinos: welcome them as people who want to realize the American Dream, and recognize that they’re here because of jobs, not free health care.
    In practical terms, that means make immigration a rational affair that reflects how much people want to come here.
    And speaking of health care–I’ve yet to hear from any conservative or Republican exactly what reforms of the private market would allow more people better and cheaper and more health care without needing government intervention.
    Next, recogize that America is not really a superpower anymore, and has not been since the fall of the Soviet Union. We’re merely the biggest remaining power in a world full of smaller entities competing for power at various levels–local, regional, and sometimes global (China, obviously, in the last category), and that whatever our interests and goals are, we can’t obtain them unilaterally–we have to get some of those competitors (not all of whom are actual countries) to work with us. IOW, a more limited and much less interventionist foreign policy, and a trimmed down military to meet the smaller demands such a foreign policy would entail.
    Finally, on social issues, recognize that some people see abortion bans as an infringement on liberty, not a protection of innocent life, and work by persuasion, not by laws nibbling around the edges, to get people on your side about abortion–and that gay marriage is ultimately another issue of personal freedom, and it’s not the business of the government to decide who can and can not marry–stick to defending the right of churches to not recognize/allow gay marrigaes if they, as denominations, don’t accept it, which by itself is more than many leftists are willing to allow.

    It’s the (what I consider)anti-immigrant xenophobia, bad foreign policy and wrong headedness on social issues that’s kept me firmly in the Libertarian colulmn for the last three presidential elections, so perhaps I’m a little biased in that appraisal, but a GOP that changed in those directions would almost certainly be a GOP I would vote for.

    kishnevi (c55ed2)

  18. Go to your local used bookstore and get a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. Read it. Understand it. Recognize when those rules are being used against you, and turn the table. There may have been a time when politics wasn’t a blood sport, but that was long, long, ago.

    htom (412a17)

  19. I am thinking along the same lines as Simon Jester. I have a larger post in the works to elaborate.

    I think the problem is that some think if you reject “purity” then that means you are selling out. But that need not be the case.

    For example, I think we could solve all our problems by cutting spending, if we did it enough. There are those who think we could solve all our problems by taxing, and they are wrong. Now, we could stick to those positions for eternity and keep running up the debt. Or, we could say: IF we can cut spending FIRST and show that we can keep it up, a significant amount, for a period of years, we will then consider raising taxes to help narrow the gap.

    We have done the opposite many times: raise taxes now and promise to cut spending in the future.

    I would be willing to consider agreeing to a tax raise under those circumstances, if I could get people on board to cut spending first. Wouldn’t that be better, albeit less pure, than insisting that taxes never be raised and we do it all through spending cuts?

    That’s just one example of what I mean.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  20. The country is essentially divided, 50:50 in terms of different visions, Patterico. From what you have written, you know this in your own family. The difference is that your family knows that each member are decent people, and you can find ways to bridge differences: each side gives a little and gets a little.

    It’s not like that, right now, in politics, on BOTH sides. We need to find common ground, pronto.

    Simon Jester (87d2bf)

  21. Crazy unpredictible Joe Biden is still a heartbeat away from the presidency. Seriously, how does that not bother people on the left and in the media equally as much as it scares those on the right?

    elissa (1f30eb)

  22. As Andrew Breitbart said, “if you can’t sell freedom, you suck.” We suck. I don’t see any imminent improvement. John Boehner is already rolling over for Obama.

    My transformational thought for the day is also borrowed from Breitbart. I’ve read about 20 soul-searching reflections on this loss from pundits along with their list of suggestions and not one – not one — has cited the need to take on the media. Yet they all cite the media as one of the causes of this loss. Incredible. Romney’s (and the Republicans’) greatest failure in my opinion was their refusal to challenge the media. We’ve been letting these people set the tone and agenda and rules of our political conversation and conduct for as long as I can remember with increasingly terrible results for us and NO ONE thinks to get in their faces and try to change things. It’s like we’ve accepted that life just has to be this way. It doesn’t.

    rrpjr (82eccb)

  23. That never works, ask Reagan in ’82 with TEFRA, Simpson/Mazzoli in ’86, the ’90 budget summit, how many times do we need to reminded of this, Ryan’s plan was probably relatively meager, yet it was painted as this draconian exercise,

    Obama opposed the surge, on advice from Biden, with recommendations from Galbraith, because it might work, and help validate the Iraq campaign, he supported on multiple occasions, the Born Alive bill, possibly the most extreme abortion legislation on earth, because ‘he doesn’t want anyone punished with a child,’ he opposed capital
    gains taxcuts because thy might work, and clean
    energy because it doesnt

    narciso (ee31f1)

  24. I don’t have any ideas now, but I think we’re losing sight of something here: Broccoli should have been able to beat Barack Obama. This is the guy who didn’t lift a finger to help our diplomats in Benghazi, the guy on whose watch more soldiers have died in Afhanistan in four years than in Bush’s eight, the guy whose administration came up with Fast and Furious, the guy whose attorney general refers to “my people” and excludes me from that group the guy whose energy secretary thinks we should pay more than twice as much for a gallon of gasoline, the guy who promised to bankrupt anyone investing in coal-fired power plants, the guy who promised not to raise taxes on a large segment of the population and then did, the great uniter who encouraged his supports to vote out of revenge. And that’s just what I was able to come up with without pausing while typing.

    You can’t tell me that more than 60 million people were unaware of many of these things, even if the media contributed a max-blackout effort to the cause.

    The most flabbergasting thing about this election is that a significant part of that 60 million people knew about some of these, willingly overlooked them, voted for the man anyway.

    On another note, I haven’t sung the Star-Spangled Banner in four years (that’s at least 24 A&M home games) — I have no strong feelings for a country that would give a man such as Barack Obama even one term as president. But that’s about as truly useful as wearing pink in October. I want to figure out ways to fight back that have some greater impact. Any thoughts there?

    Diffus (4a5ca6)

  25. Patterico and others, over on the previous thread at about comment number 328 SPQR posted a link to Zero Hedge which concentrated on math and outlined some rather scary things about the efficacy of cutting spending and tax rate increases when weighed against entitlement obligations and mandatory debt service payments. I was wondering if anyone else had taken the time to read it and if it changed your thinking in any way at all about this and future elections.

    elissa (1f30eb)

  26. ==We’ve been letting these people (media) set the tone and agenda and rules of our political conversation and conduct for as long as I can remember with increasingly terrible results for us and NO ONE thinks to get in their faces and try to change things==

    Get in their faces? Newt did and does. Rudy does. And before the Sandy fiasco Chris Christie regularly did too. Yet many people, even on this blog, have criticized all three of these men at various times for being loudmouths, bellicose, too emotional and too brusque in manner to be effective spokesmen (not to mention candidates.) So what’s it gonna be folks? And who’s it gonna be folks?

    elissa (1f30eb)

  27. Three problems with Republicans in general:
    1) You can not be for smaller government if you think that the government needs to do something about Problem X. (Where Problem X requires a new law to deal with it.) Doing nothing to fix a “problem” is preferable to doing something. Government should only get involved if nothing else has worked.

    2) Social Conservatives need to figure out if they REALLY want a seat at the table or just want to be divine cranks. Politics is compromise. Doctrine is not. If you can not separate the two, maybe the clergy is your calling not politics.

    3) Stop pretending that you don’t think people should be empowered to take care of themselves. Welfare is not an acceptable choice for able bodied people between 18-55. If they choose that path it should be uncomfortable so as to provide incentive to get off it. Liberty and Freedom should be inversely proportional to the amount of government assistance you receive.

    MunDane (861704)

  28. 2. We need to quit being absolutists about social issues. I know that will upset people, but Akin and Mourdock cost us more than their Senate seats—they were Poster Boys for “what Republicans stand for.” Both Akin and Mourdock let their ego get in the way of the Big Picture.

    Agreed.

    How in the world could anyone think that, “Vote for me and I will make sure that if your little girl gets herself raped and becomes pregnant, the government will force her to have the baby whether she likes it or not”, an effective campaign platform?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  29. And remember, that wasn’t what either of those two men wanted as their taglines. The DNC-MSM Alliance did that.

    Simon Jester (87d2bf)

  30. Actually, Jacobsen, explained how this was just a fig leaf, as with the state in that other cycle, the
    arrogant Senator Lugar who is impart responsible for giving Obama a credential on proliferation, who stabbed McCain in the back,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  31. I want to point again at Bill Whittle’s A New Beginning … ; it is ninety minutes, but you’ll feel better when you’ve heard him.

    htom (412a17)

  32. And remember, that wasn’t what either of those two men wanted as their taglines. The DNC-MSM Alliance did that.

    What they believed came out.

    People with such beliefs are unelectable. They should be purged.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  33. We need good communicators to run for office. It’s not enough to be an ideologue or promise to deliver the right voting record if elected to office—one must be able to communicate the conservative message in a viable, persuasive, happy warrior context, particularly since NBC, CBS, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, Jon Stewart, and Saturday Night Live are all eager to publicly define GOP candidates.
    See “Dumb Uneducated Sarah Palin 2008,” and “Evil Rich Guy Mitt Romney, 2012″ as examples.

    We need to develop a seminar for our candidates to attend so they can learn to be a little more media savvy, particularly since our team must deal with a hostile media that seeks to trap them into a game of “gotcha !”
    It’s become a Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Jon Stewart, TMZ, ESPN world out there, and these candidates who campaign without that context in mind risk doing damage not only to their own prospects of winning, but they inevitably end up contributing to the branding of other GOP candidates with the same stripe, thanks to a left wing Democrat media complex that is just looking for anything to fuel the fire of a Republicans Hate Women or Republicans Hate Big Bird/Clean Water/And Puppy Dogs meme.

    The Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks of our big tent need to get their heads in the game, and stop f*&^ing around by daring the electorate to reject their tortured explanations of rape, conception, abortion exceptions, and Lord knows what other distractions they want to concoct. While the Titanic was sinking, they were discussing the nuances of the re-positioning of the deck chairs.
    Have they no shame ?
    Romney carried Indiana and Missouri handily, yet Akins and Mourdock got creamed in their races. That means a lot of Romney voters were turned off by talk of rape, conception, blah, blah.
    And then as elissa has pointed out, Joe Walsh in Illinois caught a similar virus, and he ended up dragging down yet another GOP Congressman in a nearby Illinois district.

    Also, we need to shake some sense into the holier-than-thou libertarians who insist on voting for the Gary Johnson party poopers of the world, thereby helping to enable the Democrat to win at least a plurality in a two and a half person contest.
    Two potential Arizona Congressmen went down to defeat last nite when it turned out that the margin of votes between the second-place Republican candidate and the winning Democrat candidate was exceeded by the number of votes for the libertarian candidate. If the libertarian voters had voted for the GOP candidates instead, the GOP candidates would have won. That’s two seats in Congress.
    Do you remember what the margin of error was in the House vote for ObamaCare in Feb/March 2010 ?

    Yes, voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is necessary, just as you do it when taking a job, choosing a place to live, buying a shirt off-the-rack at Macy’s, or even which movie to see at the local cineplex after you realize the film you came to see is ‘sold out.’

    When you vote for Gary Johnson, you don’t get Gary Johnson as your President.
    Rather, you get Barack Obama—and then we all get screwed. And the “free birth control” is of no help, because the seeds of European Statism are reaching the point of conception.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  34. They should have considered the damage they would have done, and stepped down. We cannot afford misstatements like that any more. And it doesn’t matter that the Left gets away with crazy stuff all the time. It’s not fair, but it is the New Normal.

    Simon Jester (87d2bf)

  35. If Republicans are going to broaden their coalition, they need to commit to a major personal sacrifice and demonstrate that their highest priority is the long term health of the nation, not just getting re-elected.

    My proposal is this: the cornerstone of the platform should be making sure that politicians pay their fair share. I think it is an idea most people form any side of the political spectrum would agree with.

    The key component to my idea is to tax elected and certain appointed officials differently than the rest of the citizenry. Their base tax rate is the same as the federal spending rate-no deductions, no exemptions, no preferential treatment for capital gains, etc. These officials are the ones setting the budgets and spending the money; they should pay enough personally to enure that they are not contributing to increasing the debt. (Consider that neither Mitt or Obama paid 24% of their unadjusted gross; thus, even these guys are adding to the deficit).

    This tax rate is adjusted by expenditures that are not funded as a percentage of GDP. This includes both deficit spending and unfunded mandates. This adjustment term accumulates every year.

    For example, in 2012 the government spends 24% of GDP, and ~8% is borrowed. (I cannot find reliable numbers for unfunded mandates). Thee tax rate for all elected officials as well as certain appointees (Department heads, Czars, etc.) would be 32%. If the spending ratios stay the same in 2013, the tax rate goes for someone serving in both years would rise to 40% because of the accumulated deficit number.

    Spousal income is subject to the same tax rate. Again, these people need to pay their fair share.

    A couple of other thoughts:

    Pensions and benefits earned while subject to this act are reduced by the adjustment percentage. If a person retired when spending was 24% with a 20% adjustment, his pension benefits would drop by 20% (The amount of the adjustment.)

    Moving form one position to another does not reset the adjustment. Senator Obama’s numbers would add when he became President.

    Finally, pay is a multiple of per capita GDP; an economy growing faster than population would result in raises; a stagnant one would result in flat or pay cuts.

    A plan like this gives politicians a disincentive to spend, and an even greater disincentive to deficit spend. It aligns politicians’ net pay with the economy and a prudent tax/spending policy. It ensures turnover if the government cannot manage it finances well.

    If Republicans running for Federal office could commit to making a major personal sacrifice like this the keystone of their agenda, it should boost their chances with the electorate. Demonstrate that your goal is to serve the country, not just your voters and donors.

    MartyH (9119a2)

  36. The Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks of our big tent need to get their heads in the game, and stop f*&^ing around by daring the electorate to reject their tortured explanations of rape, conception, abortion exceptions, and Lord knows what other distractions they want to concoct. While the Titanic was sinking, they were

    There is a simple answer.

    Morning after pills made the rape-caused pregnancy problem a thing of the past.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  37. I don’t know how welcome this will be, but I’ll throw it out.

    Scorched-earth tactics don’t work as national strategy. The reason should be obvious, but in case it isn’t, and to be direct, don’t shit where other people have to eat.

    Whiite men are no longer the Deciderators. Deal. There are multiple implications.

    I’m very glad to see Patterico and others loosening up on libertarian issues. This is, from my perspective, a good sign, and if I see a Republican doing so that I actually can vote for (I live in probably the most Demo-held city in the country), I will. I want a sane Republican party. Our Rube-Goldberg system only works when there is tension, and the relative closeness of decisions (as well as reactions I’m seeing) make me think that a lot of Republicans don’t realize what a loss this was for them, nor that the pendulum is still moving.

    On that note, for anyone who wants to think about these things, a far better writer than I opined at http://www.scalzi.com/ . A sci-fi author, genrally sane human, not a partisan firebomber by any stretch; just a small businessman living in rural Ohio explaining why he can’t get behind Republicans at the moment.

    I know it sucks to lose this big – I’ve been feeling this way since 200,l around when I actually started paying attention. . Disclosure: I’m not happy that Obama won, but I’m glad Romney lost. I like some of the senators a lot, mostly on civil liberties and finance. I am pro-choice with no qualifications, and so I’m glad that the SCOTUS picks will likely hold off any changes there for a bit. But buck up – most of the Democrats are chasing the same money Republicans would have, so the difference won’t be that big.

    Jamie (2169bf)

  38. Let’s pitch a scenario. How do you draw us back.

    DCSCA’s family was registered Republican for 80 years or more.

    Mom was a Goldwater Girl; worked in his campaign; Dad, an old oil man, was as FOP as GHWB as was his Dad, a banker, until in the Depression, he went FDR to keep his livlihood but came home for Dewey. All of us GOP. Until 1984. The break began with trickledown, Falwell, faux privatization forays and by the ’92 recession, DCSCA’s left for Bubba. Still, favorite vote was for Ford. Genuinely liked Jerry Ford. Mom left in ’92, after voting Republican since Ike. Oh, how she loved Ike. Dad held out for GHWB then left as well. The brother- well, you still have him. Immigration issues. An attorney, of course.

    At holidays and elections, we’d ask, how did they lose us– well, all but one of us– we survived the ’60′s culture wars and don’t care about abortion- that’s personal choice; or who sleeps with and marries who; we don’t fret over immigration, save the ‘racist’ gun-loving younger brother– we all are of immigrant stock. Greatgrandfather was German. And harrassed at home and in his barber shop during both wars by ‘Americans.’ A working stiff- [aka'small businessman; in today's jargon]- voted GOP to his grave. We want a strong defense but not a gold-plated military which fights elective wars… we don’t care who worships what– and trust some government projects are truly good and some a waste. Where did all these nuts come from talking about rape. Or God. And dinosaurs. And dissing of science. These people are loons. We were moderates. And the Republican Party left us by lurching right.

    Seriously– how do you get us back; or do you even want us back, because you managed to get an elderly Goldwater girl to vote for Obama– twice. And she really didn’t want to– but the alternative was just ‘a bunch of crazies’ to an old woman who’s seen eight decades of this.

    How do you get us back into the tent.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  39. PS- thanks, Patterico, for the re-up.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  40. My opinion only. But I watched as the Left was able to create a whole Narrative about the Right, and Romney. I watched young voters buy it completely, because their only source of information was completely controlled by the MSM-DNC Alliance.

    Jack Marshall pointed out that they distorted coverage of the campaign and issues.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  41. Where did all these nuts come from talking about rape. Or God. And dinosaurs. And dissing of science. These people are loons. We were moderates. And the Republican Party left us by lurching right.

    Seriously– how do you get us back; or do you even want us back, because you managed to get an elderly Goldwater girl to vote for Obama– twice. And she really didn’t want to– but the alternative was just ‘a bunch of crazies’ to an old woman who’s seen eight decades of this.

    Amndf there are no crazies on the Left?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  42. “As a result, the GOP is a party held hostage to the social values issues, and we no longer represent the majority on those social values.”

    Romney and the Republicans ran their entire camapign void of any social vlaue, or national defense for that matter-the platform was economics, taxes, jobs-jobs-jobs and your happy wallets

    Meanwhile, Obama ran on Free Crap, Gay Marriage, subsidizing Ladyparts, Free Contraception Pills, Racism, Killing Bin Laden, Saving the Auto Industry and won.

    At the end of it all the fact of the matter is 50% of Americans voted for Obama because of Free Government Crap-be it cell phones to gold-plated public pensions. Even if Republicans say yes to Abortion, yes to Legalizing Pot, yes to Gay Marriage we won’t win because we do not say yes to Free Government Crap.

    The problem isn’t the message or social issues, the problem is that a majority of American citizens have chosen to Die for Free Crap rather than Live Free.

    How many Fiscal Conservatives are willing to outdo George Bush’s passionate conservativism which offered more Free Government Crap than Ronald Reagan? Fiscal Conservatives and Social Libertarians in the Republican Party hated George Bush not because he was a pro-lifer who believed in the union between a man and a woman, Fiscal Conservatives hated Geroge Bus because he spent more than Democrat Clinton!

    And George W Bush-the social conservative- managed to win all the swing states which Mitt Romney could not.

    The only way we can return to fiscal sanity is to have open and honest converstaions with our family, friends and neighbors who voted for Free Government Crap that in doing so they are stealing from their own family, friends and neighbors.

    50% of Americans are screwing the other 50% of Americans and none of it has to do with social issues.

    \

    Susan (9aacba)

  43. Even before morning after pills there were emergency rooms with penicillin and methotraxate. The biggest problem with rape is that the women and young girls are ashamed to let it be known.

    nk (875f57)

  44. Comment by elissa — 11/7/2012 @ 8:47 pm

    Bellicosity is not required. Newt’s confrontations with the media, just before and during the South Carolina primary, were calm and commanding. He won SC overwhelmingly, the biggest victory of his campaign. Startlingly, he never challenged the media in that high-profile way again during the primaries. Rudy, while running for President in 2008, oddly lost his media-challenging skills. Now he’s got them back.

    We need, as a mindset, practice and discipline, to approach the media with dispassionate disrespect — to question and challenge their premises, question their questions, refuse to let insinuations or biases pass unremarked, stop acting so deferential around them like we owe them something, hold them to a standard and point out to their face when they don’t hold to it, remind them of their journalistic credo as a means of embarrassment, and in general approach every interview with a confident understanding of their true intentions rather than as guileless interviewees grateful for the exposure.

    rrpjr (82eccb)

  45. Also, we need to shake some sense into the holier-than-thou libertarians who insist on voting for the Gary Johnson party poopers of the world …

    Ya know (or maybe you don’t) I carried the elephants’ water around for decades (’63-’86), and was finally explicitly told to leave by the district chair; he didn’t want my pro-choice views around in his district convention any longer. My wife had wanted me to quit for years over the tire slashings when I went to conventions. You want to shake me, bring it on, although I’ve become more of a Rational Anarchist than a L(or l)ibertarian. You didn’t want us, you drove us out, and now you whine that we don’t vote for your fetus worshiping bigots? :snort:

    htom (412a17)

  46. Well rrpjr, you forgot a little thing called the Florida primary, and how that went down,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  47. Kishnevi – why conflate anti illegal immigration with being anti-immigrant?

    I love it when IMP starts writing fiction. Again. And talking about itself in the 3rd person.

    JD (318f81)

  48. I have strong suspicions that it is all about “purity” or some weird “anti-Mormon” bigotry

    The evangelical vote was at a near record high. They supported Romney more than they supported Mccain. I just don’t think this was a factor.

    We need to ask if we want to always lose and be “pure,” or be 80% pure and win.

    I decided (months ago) that I would rather win with an unprincipled Romney than see another four years of Obama. I think anyone serious about our country’s future would agree that Romney is going to do less damage than Obama did, at worst, and could even have been a good president (I guess).

    But it wasn’t fun voting for Romney. It wasn’t any more fun than voting for Mccain was. Is this about ideological purity? Yes. I felt that our nation’s times urgently called for a bold rebuke, and we nominate such a moderate?! It’s frustrating.

    But anyone out there who didn’t show up for Romney because of their love for conservatism has made a huge mistake.

    I think we’re losing sight of something here: Broccoli should have been able to beat Barack Obama.

    This is a cultural problem. Can we pick a candidate so awesome that he overcomes that? Can we transform into a party that is so awesome we overcome that?

    I guess the transformation of the party would have to come with some serious changes in perspective in our country.

    Dustin (73fead)

  49. There is one and only one objection I have to dnbr’s comment. Obama won unmarried women by 30 points. “[I]nfringing on others’ right to exercise their Liberty” has come too often to mean denying folk the government goodies that enable or reassure them in their life choices. Witness Sandra Fluke. Without strength in the natural support structures of marriage and family, individuals look to the government for security. I fear, in that case, that the Liberty message won’t sell.

    Nathan Wagner (9553f1)

  50. Ah, crap. That…odd person…DCSCA is back. Remember: he makes up stuff all the time. Caught in the past. Not trustworthy now.

    Simon Jester (87d2bf)

  51. The grand old party needs more members.
    Conservative Americans better start screwing and have 10 kids instead of 2.

    mg (31009b)

  52. Where did all these nuts come from talking about rape. Or God. And dinosaurs. And dissing of science. These people are loons. We were moderates. And the Republican Party left us by lurching right.

    Loons? How about post-menopausal women dressing in Code Pink Va-Jay-Jays demanding everyone pay for their birth control pills.

    Or the Green loons who pillaged $90 billion in tax-dollars to up-start Go Green companies manufacting solar panel crap which entered into bankruptcy within three years?

    Or the loons who bailed out a bankrupted auto industy drowning in gold-plated union pensions which then built electric cars which blow-up and cost tax-payers around $250 grand a piece?

    Or what about the loons who think all white men are racists becasue they won’t give women, minorities and gays free government crap?

    or what about the loons who leave human babies to die in hospital closets because they failed to kill the babies the first go around?

    Or how about the loons who demand tax-payers fund their sex-change operations?

    or how aout the celebrity loons-the rich white male 1% , such as Tom Hanks, Steven Speilberg, Bill Maher , jon Stewart who gleefully campaign for the candidate who wages Class Warfare by blaming all the world’s problems on Rich White 1%ers.

    For that matter how about the Hollywood loons who fly around the world in their private jets while demanding America be returned to the Dark Ages in order to Save the Envrionment?

    How about the anti-science loons who believe in Global Warming despite the fact that Global Warming ended 16 years ago?

    How about the loons who think Joh Stewart is a legitiate news anchor and Bill Maher is funny?

    And a Moderate is the nobody who wants to be somebody.

    And Moderate guy your feelings about religion, God, dinosaurs, science have no meaning when 50% of the country are only concerned with Free Government Crap.

    Susan (9aacba)

  53. #37 is pure fiction, from a serial fabulist.

    JD (318f81)

  54. DCSCA,

    Friend, I’m just curious…the Republican party today is generally to the left of Goldwater in ’64.
    Therefore, how is that your former Goldwater girl would find today’s GOP to be a bunch of right wing crazies ? The knock on Romney by most Goldwater supporters is that Romney is not conservative enough.

    If she found LBJ’s Big Government liberalism distasteful in ’64, how is it that she doesn’t find Obama’s Big Government Liberalism too objectionable, today ?

    Goldwater was very explicit about his regard for Federalism and the Constitutional authority reserved for each of the branches of government. On the other hand, Obama doesn’t appear to honor Federalism, and he’s in love with “Executive Orders.” He doesn’t even believe he’s Constitutionally obligated to enforce federal law—unless he personally agrees with the law.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  55. I didn’t see other commenters’ characterizations of DCSCA as a fabulist and liar, until after I pushed ‘send.’

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  56. @51- Every party has fringe. But the GOP’s are center-stage now, running for U.S. Senate seats. And make no mistake, those seven seats that went to the Dems were handed over because the GOP ran loons. You can rail against it all you want- but the results show it. Those Senate seats should have been easy GOP wins. So your pitch is to stay hard right and not bother to broaden the tent. Got it.

    @52. =yawn= Except it’s not.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  57. DCSCA is one of the post-menopausal women who dressed uu in Code Pink Va-Jay-Jay costume demanding free goverment birth control pills.

    Well I say DCSCA: I am Woman hear me Roar, if you keep your greedy hands out of my wallet I won’t have to care about what you do in your bedroom!

    Susan (9aacba)

  58. First, I typed a really long post that I somehow deleted, which is very frustrating.

    Second, I want to say that Diffus is one of the best persons I have ever known although we haven’t talked to each other in more than 30 years. He understood the importance of God and Country back when the rest of us were dirty hippies. When he says something, believe it.

    Third, to answer Diffus’ question, live your life as if you mean it. If you want to make a difference, if you want to defeat the ideas of a predominant media-driven culture, be a good person.

    I watched a segment on Nightline tonight praising the President for his ability to overcome all the nasty things said about him by people on my side. Regardless of the arguments that some may give about whether that those statement are right or wrong, the right has an ace in the hole: We are good in decent people.

    So, here’s my answer for Diffus:

    Volunteer in your community. Live by example. Be true to your beliefs. Don’t argue and insult, but stand for what you believe in.

    Stand with your family within reason. Respect your spouse.

    Show that you care. Help people that need help and don’t expect a reward.

    Do your job and don’t expect a reward.

    Understand that bad things happen and sometimes, it is really no one’s fault.

    Don’t worry about what others do or insult yourself by judging their success.

    Don’t insult yourself by judging someone’s failure.

    Try to raise good children and let them live their lives. Usually, they will come around.

    If you have bad habits, try to stop them. Ask your family for forgiveness after you do.

    And with all of that, I don’t for a minute suppose that you or I have the all the answers for winning future elections.

    However, I do know that it is a better creed than government-sanctioned morality.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  59. Susan, do not mistake the one you call “moderate guy” for a moderate guy. That’s not what he is. Also, just because the left has a much larger group of loons (which you did a great job of listing) does not mean the right doesn’t have its share of loons too –and they cost us real votes and lost us important seats yesterday. We need to be honest with ourselves about this.

    elissa (1f30eb)

  60. @53 – love you, too JD.

    Jamie (2169bf)

  61. Nice comment, AG.

    Dustin (73fead)

  62. Everyone throws three coins in the fountain when they visit Rome, but oh how I wish Reagan had selected Jack Kemp as his VP in 1980.

    We wouldn’t have been saddled with Reagan’s successor asking “what is all that vision thing about ?,” and Kemp would have appealed to blacks to the degree that some of them might have found a permanent landing in the GOP.

    Bush 41 is a good honorable man who served his country in various capacities (including WW2), but he just wasn’t a movement conservative. And his inability (and lack of conviction) to communicate the conservative vision really did a disservice to the Reagan accomplishments.

    I think that’s a “teachable moment” for us to consider when we’re contemplating 2016.
    We need to get behind a conservative who is a skilled and passionate communicator—particularly during this era of YouTube, the internets, and 593 cable channels.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  63. Told comcast to get their cable off my property.
    Time to hunker down, close the gate and flip people the bird trying to set foot on my property. Game on boys and girls. Have little money, but my family showed me the way to survival. Suck it up and do it alone.

    mg (31009b)

  64. @53. the Republican party today is generally to the left of Goldwater in ’64.

    She was a party loyalist through the culture wars and doesnt see it that way. The talk of God. Of rape. God and gays– doesn’t sound very ‘left’ to her. Hence th reference to ‘crazies.’ And at 81, likes her SS and Medicare and doesnt want anybody messing with it. 50 years of life experience from ’64 does that– but she still treasures her long flat can of Goldwater Ginger Ale in the curio cabinet. Regardless, how do you expand the tent. And if you’re going to keep challinging the validity of the family history, you’re just reinforcing in microcosm the broader problem the GOP of today is facing. When a Goldwater Girl– still a registered Republican on the books BTW since her youth (she refuses to change the affiliation) goes for Obam twice because of the ‘crazies’ you’ve got a problem. DCSCA would like to ‘come home’ but not until the loons are purged. Two of us admire Christie – a lot– for gellying up to reality and compromising for the good of his state. If he ran, we all might just come home.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  65. 63- christie is a self promoting turd and must be flushed down the rino sewer.

    mg (31009b)

  66. The Republicans were the minority party (at the federal level) from 1933 to 1995, losing both houses of Congress just about every election. They’ve done a lot better over the last 20 years then they did in the previous 60.

    So, why make a fundamental change now? Just because two elections didn’t go their way? That’s absurd.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  67. 61- Rudy?

    mg (31009b)

  68. @53- And FWIW, Dad wasnt keen on LBJ personally, but the company was at the time- big gov’t contracts for jet fuel. But both folks went for Nixon in ’68.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  69. @54- Guess you’ve never been to the Jersey Shore. We’ll take that as a no. Name someone you’d run in 2016 to draw in old frinds and fresh faces.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  70. Well said.

    I’ll bring up Hayek again, “Why I’m Not A Conservative.” It’s a good read, short. This is why I call myself a classical liberal rather than a conservative.

    As you say, the GOP should be more about freedom and less about adhering to someone’s version of morality. That’s not freedom, but coercion, Hayek would say.

    Religion has an important place in culture, but if it’s not voluntarily embraced, it becomes oppression. We should teach the Judeo Christian ethics of course but not wed it completely into our version of governance.

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  71. @61- you recall why he went with GHWB, of course. Kemp’s ‘enterprise zones’ were a good idea. Saw it at work in Jersey City. Trouble was, the environs outside them didn’t keep up.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  72. @65– Rudy wasn’t all that popular in NYC on September 10, 2001. That all changed the next day. Recall how much he spent to get one delegate in his last run. He’s comfortable making a lot of $ in the P/S now.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  73. @69- As you say, the GOP should be more about freedom and less about adhering to someone’s version of morality. Yes but that went out the window w/the Moral Majority, Falwell… Reed and his crowd. It’s now the foundation of the base.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  74. _______________________________________________

    If she found LBJ’s Big Government liberalism distasteful in ’64, how is it that she doesn’t find Obama’s Big Government Liberalism too objectionable, today ?

    Exactly.

    Generally, people gravitate from left to right as they grow older. That makes even greater sense when such people are living within the context of a society that is the opposite of, say, Egypt following the Arab Spring, now taken over by the Sharia-Law crowd.

    There’s something peculiar about people gravitating from right to left — certainly when they’re well past their youth — even more so when the mid-point of the socio-economic spectrum has meandered leftward over the past 50 years. That’s why to be a liberal in the context of, for example, 1960 was one thing. To be a liberal in the context of 2012 is to be quite extreme.

    I’m acquainted with a very leftwing person who obviously was quite happy with yesterday’s election. The two-faced nature of such people always is a sight to behold. They live and act one way, yet support politicians and policies that move in the opposite direction.

    The liberal in question has done sneaky things to avoid paying taxes (ie, he’s no different from the current — and presumably upcoming — Secretary of the Treasury), has sent his kids to private schools (Hi, Michelle and Barack!), gets nervous about the safety of “certain” neighborhoods, furtively owns guns for a sense of personal security, does back flips to avoid the nuisances imposed upon business by government edicts, embraces or is nonchalant about Green-Earth do-gooderism, but is a devotee of tooling around in gas guzzlers, or is quite comfy living in places with the thermostat set quite high during the winter, the AC set quite low during the summer, etc.

    America is full of “limousine liberals,” and I don’t know if I’m being either too cynical or appropriately realistic when I have a suspicion that the future of this society isn’t going to be all too happy or noble. Even more so when I’ve heard it said that the prime of great nations generally doesn’t extend far beyond around 200 years. Even more so when a country is presided over by a person sympathetic with the rhetoric of “goddamn” the society he’s in charge of.

    Mark (66bba6)

  75. “Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.”–David Boaz

    That’s my core belief, and I vote Republican because they are now, and always have been, closer to that than the Democrats, who are totalitarians.

    I’d vote for Libertarians, except they have no chance of winning.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  76. _____________________________________________

    When a Goldwater Girl– still a registered Republican on the books BTW since her youth (she refuses to change the affiliation) goes for Obam twice

    The part of her brain that controls common sense probably has become damaged or diminished through the decades. It can be considered a form of senility.

    As for people whose opinions change or evolve, I have more confidence in someone along the lines of this:

    Foxnewsinsider.com: Here’s an endorsement that has some people in the Beltway talking this morning.

    Gigi Georges, who used to be a top aide to Hillary Clinton when the current Secretary of State was a U.S. Senator, has come out in support of Mitt Romney just days before the election.

    Here is her statement explaining the decision:

    “For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them.

    That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

    Mark (66bba6)

  77. KFTijO Fantastic article post. Will read on…

    bookmarking submission (9ace40)

  78. @76 well, that didn’t work. You have a (D) Senate, and President. So what now?

    I’m sure JD is going to pipe up, ’cause blogs are better when people are ideologically pure, or something.

    So, again, given that the majority would like heath care, perhaps more Scandinavian taxation, oversight of food, etc. what now? Not being a jerk to immigrants through clenched teeth won’t workforce at last the next two cycles. . (to be fair, I don’t attribute that to JD.)

    Jamie (2169bf)

  79. I concur with Patterico’s views in this post.

    Beldar (cee64e)

  80. I doubt that the GOP us held hostage by social values issues, since Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee didn’t rise beyond their 5 minutes of fame.

    Moving more towards libertarianism helped us in 2010, but outright libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson did not win the GOP primaries. Ron Paul lost some states to Santorum.

    I think “dbnr” is making that false assumption that seems to be popular in places like Reason magazine – that the electorate is growing fiscally conservative AND socially liberal. If true, then tilting center on immigration or marriage would expand the GOP tent.

    But that’s not what happened. The new coalition that empowered Obama favor the kind of big / intrusive government. I don’t think the government should dictate where I should buy my healthcare, how much calories I put in my body, or where I should send my kids to school, if I had any. Is that a sentiment shared by Latinos, Asians, and blacks?

    lee (f7dedd)

  81. She was a party loyalist through the culture wars and doesnt see it that way. The talk of God. Of rape. God and gays– doesn’t sound very ‘left’ to her. Hence th reference to ‘crazies.’

    And there are no crazies in the Democratic Party?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  82. Here’s my 2c.

    Forget what the rest of the world thinks. They don’t have to live with the result – you do.

    My second point would be that the GOP needs to find a way of breaking this deadlock, not just win another 2% or so, wipe the map red. The Democrats do not represent your country’s values so why the heck have they managed to convince so many that they do!? Maybe there needs to be some sort of ongoing ad campaign outlining what the GOP is *really* about as opposed to the propoganda everyone seems to find so easy to believe.

    scrubone (294e53)

  83. Is that a sentiment shared by Latinos, Asians, and blacks?

    Why would they want the government to “dictate where [they] should buy [their] healthcare, how much calories I put in [their bodies], or where I should send [their] kids to school”?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  84. If true, then tilting center on immigration or marriage would expand the GOP tent.

    DOMA passed by lopsided majorities in the House and the Senate. That illustrates where the center on marriage is.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  85. A few things are clear:

    1. We have been arguing against the abortion right for 40 years now, and made very little headway. How much longer are we going to beat this dead horse?

    2. Not all that long from now, all women will have come of age after Roe. There are three generations of women who already have. How much longer are we going to alienate large numbers of these ladies?

    3. The Court majority referred to stare decisis (Latin for “stop beating dead horses”) twenty years ago. How many votes to overturn does anyone think remain? Could be none.

    Someday soon we will have to give this up. Why not now?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  86. 2. Not all that long from now, all women will have come of age after Roe. There are three generations of women who already have. How much longer are we going to alienate large numbers of these ladies?

    How alienated are they from pro-life Democrats?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  87. As for candidates, we probably need fewer social issue absolutists like Akins who could not win in a conservative and largely rural state, and more candidates like Colonel Martha McSally who is currently leading in a nailbiter for Arizona’s 2nd CD (Gabrielle Gifford’s old seat). First female combat pilot, line USAF colonel, and commanded a wing of A10s in the field.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  88. I note that Mr./Ms. dbnr does not wear moral rectitude on their sleeve in proposing Liberty as a unifying mantra.

    IOW, we need to offer liberty as governments relation to its citizens and not irrationally impose the value, proscribing discrimination, enforcing values.

    If a State chooses to limit abortion, so be it. If your neighbor chooses a religious upbringing for their children, or campaigns to restrict employment of sexual orientations as educators other than their own, etc., we need to tread carefully before shouting ‘Bigot!’.

    Remove the log from our own eyes.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/mitts-loss-leaves-us-with-a-lesson/#more

    Big takeaway from commenters, “The ‘rich, old, white guy, well-connected in DC’ model is a mangy dog.”

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  89. Michael, do you think we are going to win this anytime soon? Are you really willing to toss everything else on this useless fire?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  90. Not only do we need to refrain from confusing law and moral codes, but we need to call the other side out when they do the same thing.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  91. One thing the Republicans might try is to do an end run around the … um, rather polarizing social conservatives, by making social issues irrelevant to the realm of government action and convincing the social conservatives that this is a Good Idea.

    For example: “marriage equality” or “gay marriage” or whatever you want to call it. Most people today are OK with domestic partnerships. But the current demand is for the government to recognize gay marriages. Trouble is, quite a few people view marriage as a religious sacrament, not a bureaucratic process. Many social conservatives fear that the next step will be the State intruding into religious affairs, requiring that churches perform gay marriages. (It’s not hypothetical or far-fetched; I’ve talked with a couple of gay activists who said that given the opportunity, they’d be willing sue to bring this about.)

    The libertarian solution? Get the government out of the marriage business! The document filed with the government should be for a civil union, for gays and straights alike. If you want to get “married,” fine … do it in whatever church or temple or county courthouse or Elvis theater you want, have whatever ceremony and ritual you want, but keep the State out of it. Presto! You’ve just deprived the Left of an issue that they shouldn’t have been able to exploit in the first place.

    The best part is that this would benefit the social conservatives, too. The government would never be able to force a church (or mosque!) to violate its religious principles regarding who can marry whom. The less the State intrudes into their religious beliefs and practices, the happier they ought to be.

    Herp McDerp (f20081)

  92. Presto! You’ve just deprived the Left of an issue that they shouldn’t have been able to exploit in the first place.

    How effective are they in exploiting this issue? As I recall, DOMA was passed by lopsided margins in the House and Senate.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  93. Sure let’s change our stand on abortion and adopt irresponsibility as our motto, pro-choice. Let’s change it from our support of “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” DONE

    Let’s also change our stand on illegal immigration and the rule of law. We will now support free unlimited immigration and let’s just allow all of these foreign invaders become US citizens. DONE

    Let’s also adopt giving free crap, abortions, birth control, food stamps, health care, cell phones, welfare, slurpies, etc. DONE

    Let’s also no longer support traditional marriage as the foundation of a stable society. Instead let us support homosexual marriage which has never been a civil right since even before the founding of this country. DONE

    Let’s support excessive spending, might as well got to make it a large tent. DONE

    Let’s support increasing taxes on the actual job creators and the common working man. Make that tent even bigger. DONE

    While we’re at it since we’ve become pro-choice on abortion (which actually has nothing to do with a woman’s body, but is a totally separate individual life), we will then become anti-choice on the things that actually have to with your freedom of what you do with your own body, ie.,choice of size of soda, transfats, fries, meal size choice in restaurants,salt, smoking, healthcare, etc… DONE

    Let’s promote personal irresponsibility to the max, if it feels good do it! Oh except for those things we choose to like those listed above. DONE

    Let’s choose the most liberal person ever as our nominee, oops we did that with Romney. I told you so, back when the primaries were going on what would happen. DONE

    What have we now become when we do all these things? Answer; the ME TOO PARTY otherwise known as the Democratic Party.

    No, the problem with the election is that we let a bunch of RINO’s foist a so called more electable moderate (aka liberal lite) candidate on us again. Anyone notice a pattern here? Nominee List;
    Ford (Moderate) LOST
    George H W Bush (Moderate) One first election on Conservative Reagan’s coattails LOST re-election on his own.
    Dole (Moderate) LOST
    Romney (Moderate) LOST

    Reagan ran as Conservative and won bigtime. GW Bush runs as a “Compassionate Conservative” and squeaks out a win. Numerous GOP governors run and win as conservatives. Same with what was that 2010 election? It was a conservative flood that swept liberals out of congress and most of the state houses that they ran in.

    Moral of the story is Real conservatives mostly win, faux conservatives generally lose.

    peedoffamerican (02aee3)

  94. WOW!Must say i have been reading “all” the interaction between the 2 of you and Im exhausted! (not negatively) I started reading from the minute the responses where posted and just re-read them all… Its like a battle of the heavyweights… the immovable object vs. the irresistible force…, raw food diets, 8PP,

    DonteHocke (a81be6)

  95. If we continue to let liberal states hold the first primaries, then we will continue to have moderate candidates that will lose the general election. This should be remedied by selecting states that do vote for the GOP rep in the general election. Also these presidential election committee members need to insist on Fox having at least one hosted debate, and that moderators be time keepers only, not friggin cheerleaders for the other side. Have each side pick some general topics for debate, pull em out of a hat, keep the time, and let the candidates actually debate the topic.

    peedoffamerican (02aee3)

  96. but I bet you that most Americans think the government should not be funding it.

    A) Not absolutely certain this is so.
    B) If it isn’t so, we need to figure out how to convince people we are right.
    C) We have to prevent the Dems and, more critically, THE MEDIA from painting our position on it wrong, as though it is against abortion entirely (their usual mantra) rather than taking money out of peoples’ hands to pay for it, regardless of their view on it.

    Note that “C” also plays into gay rights. Yes, gay rights. The whole gay thing is always — and I DO MEAN ALWAYS — sold as “it doesn’t hurt anyone. Why you so mean to gays?” This is in violation of the fact that it’s about Gay rights vs the Rights of Christians. The two are in conflict, and a rational interpretation which neither side is fully happy about needs to be found and targeted.

    Case in point — there was a Christian woman in Hawaii who owned a B&B. She was contacted by a lesbian couple in Cali, looking to book a room. When she found out they were gay, she politely declined. She would also have declined if they were a hetero couple who was unmarried (they were also unmarried but even if married, she would have demurred).

    She got/is being sued by them for violating their civil rights. Because their GAY rights override her CHRISTIAN rights. In some, perhaps many cases, this can be argued in favor of — but this case? I think not.

    And this is where much of the religious backlash against gays is coming from — not hatred of gays, or even elements of the gay agenda, but the notion that their gay rights supersede one’s religious rights.

    And that’s what part of this comes down to — getting people to grasp that religious rights — within some limits — exist, too. And paying attention to only one side of an issue is wrong and evil.

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in all 57 States (8e2a3d)

  97. Oh and cut the mic off to the other candidate whose time it is to be silent. No interrupting of the other, each side given the same amount of time for debate and response.

    peedoffamerican (02aee3)

  98. From your earlier thread:

    But today, our children are being taxed without representation. By borrowing $16 trillion, we have put every household in debt $144,000. That falls on your children. They will end up paying horrific taxes, and they never got a say.

    Hmmm. Anyone THOUGHT to bring a class-action suit regarding this to court?

    I hate legislation by judiciary, but that appears to be the only way to get this dealt with. Be an interesting case, and you want to get it before the SCotUS NOW, not when it’s packed with Obama’s liberal sycophants “Honest choices”.

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in all 57 States (8e2a3d)

  99. As I recall, DOMA was passed by lopsided margins in the House and Senate.

    Quite a while ago, wasn’t that?

    Besides, if conservatives want to expand their base rather than simply maintain a holding action, they’re going to have to win converts from the other side. The fewer irrelevant deal-breakers, the better.

    Herp McDerp (f20081)

  100. The great Ronaldus Maximus said, to paraphrase, we don’t need to compromise and go towards their way of thinking, we need to reach out and bring them toward our way of thinking.

    Also on abortion;

    “I’ve noticed everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
    ― Ronald Reagan

    peedoffamerican (02aee3)

  101. And the old canard about oohhhh, what about rape and incest for abortion. Well, they make up less than one-half of one percent of abortions. My prediction if you allow for those exceptions, all of a sudden there are going to be one to one and a half million women per year claiming rape and/or incest. Pro-choice came when most of those choosing abortions, chose to spread their legs willingly for self gratification without thought to the consequences of having sex which is propagation of the species. It is never anybodies right to take the life of an innocent.

    peedoffamerican (02aee3)

  102. Freedom just had a yard sale.
    I’m so f-ing mad. I am surrounded by insane mass holes.
    Liamotherf-ingwatha. Mr. Brown you suck, You voted for dodd frank, and the treaty to screw America. Good Riddance Mass hole.

    mg (31009b)

  103. personally I’m done with the deranged gay-bashy fetus worshiping white trash loser party.

    No more Paul Ryan. No more Marco Rubio.

    They don’t “share my values.”

    Life is just too short.

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  104. You made some respectable factors there. I appeared on the internet for the problem and located most individuals will go along with with your website., sold out after crisis review, dlqfu,

    PatriciaGrossetete (a81be6)

  105. HF, you were never ever associated with any party but the ones made up of jobless, talentless hack English Major dropout losers who march on Wall Street.

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in all 57 States (8e2a3d)

  106. Well more what I mean is that my political energies are way better used taking care of the me and mine what believe in liberty than being used to mollycoddle an unrepentantly socially backward republican party.

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  107. 102- Losers are people who don’t vote. But vote for killing babies and rubbing weenies.

    mg (31009b)

  108. I couldn’t help but notice that on the eve of voting in the “most important election of our lifetime” we had the sad spectacle of ovaltine swilling cap’n ed holding forth on… gay marriage… in Minnesota.

    These people are not winners.

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  109. It makes me sad. My home state rolling over and lubing up. Pathetic.

    mg (31009b)

  110. Mr. mg the fact that prissypants romney after 6 years and untold millions squandered actually got fewer votes than coward mccain is a Valuable Insight an abashed Team R might could use to help steer their rickety oxcart back into the mainstream.

    And I helped!

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  111. Agreed, romney was not the correct candidate. Maybe I will sit out the next election and help!!

    mg (31009b)

  112. we’ll have to wait and see

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  113. Sure Patterico, the government should get out of the way. If Mom and Dad want to commit infanticide, the government should stand aside, and neither help nor hinder. And when Grandpa punishes Mom and Dad with his 357 magnum, the government should stand aside, and neither help no hinder. NOT!!!

    Andrew (960c5e)

  114. grandpa comes across as kind of a dick in that example

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  115. America is full of “limousine liberals,” and I don’t know if I’m being either too cynical or appropriately realistic when I have a suspicion that the future of this society isn’t going to be all too happy or noble.

    I think you’re being realistic. The thinking of these people is “I’ve made good money, I was born middle class, I’m more concerned about social issues and someone richer than me that won’t notice it is going to get dinged to pay for it.”

    Same reason they elect conservative governors (politics is local) and send liberals to the national office–the disconnect that it affects them.

    I’ve just grown tired of the b.s. line that there’s such a thing as a social liberal but financial conservative. With the exception of gay marriage, socially liberal policies are paid by the government. Pro choice GOP? You’ll still get dinged for wanting to de-fund Planned Parenthood and not giving 30 year old grad students at Jesuit/Catholic Universities birth control. Immigration? Well they need government benefits or else you’re still racist.

    We’re going to lose the House in 2014 when our bipartisan efforts don’t stop the bleeding and we’re painted as obstructionists. The small central government of America of our Founders is done. Let the more enlightened grad school class of thinkers not doers fail at replacing “very good” with “perfect.”

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  116. the whole point of free birth control was to empower the social wingnut wing of team R I think

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  117. Garbage, it’s not just a talking point. It’s easier for a girl to get a condom than an aspirin, remember. It’s a reality, and again goes to the whole “social liberal/fiscal conservative” discussion.

    We just passed another tax hike “for the children” but what’s more likely: that the kid knows Federalist 45 which we’ve totally trampled or that they can now get condoms with their school mascot to show their school spirit?

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  118. getting an aspirin is still super-easy though in the big picture

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  119. 107, 108. Ah, well, it wasn’t a vote to enshrine gay marriage exactly, just practically.

    I expected State Senate to flop but the House was awful. Encourages the commie SoS, whatisname.

    Looking for tax raises on the affluent 53%.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  120. 118- Mn. needs to divide up the electorate votes, like Neb.

    mg (31009b)

  121. mg – I sympathize with you on the Massholes. When I visit it’s like going to enemy territory, but then again, most of the Northeast is enemy territory.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  122. So, again, given that the majority would like heath care, perhaps more Scandinavian taxation, oversight of food, etc. what now? Not being a jerk to immigrants through clenched teeth won’t workforce at last the next two cycles. . (to be fair, I don’t attribute that to JD.)

    Why is IMP using 2 names in one thread ? And WTF does that paragraph even mean? There is no majority in favor of govt run healthcare. Nobody wants to take its mothers social security. There is absolutely no majority in favor of Scandinavia taxation. Conflation of being anti illegal immigrant and anti immigrant, SOP for your ilk. You are a good little JournoLister, IMP.

    International Man of Parody is surreal.

    I do not understand why we even debate clowns like this that try to define the whole by a phrase removed from context by a person that is actively trying to work against us. We may have had a couple “kooks” run for office, but their kooks are in office, including the Presidency. Allowing them to confine to define us is a losing proposition.

    JD (ac62a1)

  123. an illegal immigrant cut in front of me at golden corral once

    happyfeet (34b6ab)

  124. ONCE

    happyfeet (34b6ab)

  125. 109. Hard to avoid the prob when you put it just so.

    Ace is trying to figure out where those votes went, i.e., they were cast just not counted yet.

    Maybe he’ll stumble on the Ark of the Covenant while he looks for them ballots.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  126. George W. Bush spent eight years pandering to Latinos and every voting bloc that would never vote for him. What was the result?

    Liberals and the entire MSM and cultural apparatus in general hated him because of Bush’s Republican label. By courting the left, Bush turned off the GOP base. His poll rating went down to about 23%.

    Bush 43 gave new meaning to an old saying: “Democrats reward their friends. Republicans reward their enemies.”

    DN (d1a4f3)

  127. Didn’t Bush get twice the hispanic vote that Romney got, DN?

    I agree that pandering on identity politics is not the way to go, but that goes both ways.

    I wonder if this election was lost way back when Romney staked an immigration position in the primary that was difficult to maneuver away from.

    Dustin (73fead)

  128. Senate Republicans need to come up with a strategy to oppose the breaking of the filibuster rule.

    I see this as the #1 priority, because the filibuster is the only way we can have any influence on judicial nominations. As we have seen, the constitution and passed laws mean nothing if the courts do not back them up.

    I say go to war over the filibuster. Shut down all Senate business, boycott the Senate, have the House support in any way it can, whatever tools we have should be used. The horse may be already out of the barn, but we should not give any further ground – I mean at all costs. Not a single inch.

    Now is the time to defend the rights of the minority. Now, while these rights still exist.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  129. Amen, Amphipolis. A freakin men. They should have started that fight about 2 minutes after that slime all Hairy Reed announced that.

    JD (ac62a1)

  130. I don’t understand why we should reconsider our ideals, or principles. Frankly, this election was about neither. It was about the Dems having a historical, charismatic (to them ) messianic figurehead and a a better GOTV program for their voters. It was an election about small things when we had big problems. We lost it when they defined Romney as an evil corporate raider that hates women.

    JD (ac62a1)

  131. 127: Better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.

    Boehner and Co. can cave all they want, when it doesn’t work they’re going to be blamed as obstructionist ANYWAY for not going “full retard”

    maybe it works

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  132. Exactly go fully Delta, even though it might be a futile gesture,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  133. I agree with this.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  134. Honor all Americans for their right to pursue their happiness in their own way.

    I love this mission for the GOP.

    But I cannot fathom many of the Republicans I know staying on board if they think it means dropping the quest to end abortion.

    I intellectually grasp the merit of saying ‘this is not the government’s role, so live your life as you want and let me live mine as I want’, but I’m interested in seeing how this argument can be made to appeal to social conservatives.

    I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m genuinely curious about how this idea moves forward.

    Dustin (73fead)

  135. I’m still convinced that we lost in GOTV efforts. 10 million voters abandoned Obama from ’08. That means that he lost the argument on policy. He won on GOTV and dishonest scare tactics.

    Those things should not affect GOP policy positions.

    SPQR (768505)

  136. Yes.

    This election shows a move by the country towards libertarianism. Although Mitt assumed the mantle of fiscal libertarianism, it didn’t connect with the voters. Obama was the cultural libertarian that connected. He portrayed the other side (correctly) as anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. He also dishonestly portrayed us as anti-birth control.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  137. Do you remember the investigations of the Bush Administration when Obama took over?

    The House needs to investigate every single instance of Administration lawlessness, and put each and every one on record – the New Black Panther case, the illegal granting of welfare waivers, the Libya war that had no Congressional authorization, the deliberate breaking of immigration law, the flouting of subpoenas, etc. Each one should end with some form of official censure.

    Add to that Fast and Furious and Benghazi. The House needs to put Obama on notice that rule of law is still expected in this country, and when it is bypassed there will be consequences and documentation.

    Let the media portray this as partisan sour grapes. This is about accountability and building a record. The media will oppose the Republicans anyway. Doing this will give conservative spokespeople issues to use to go after the corrupt media as well. This must be pursued aggressively right from the start.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  138. I like how Amphipolis thinks.

    JD (ac62a1)

  139. If I were the House leadership, I would pass the 2008 budget, before all the stimulus and pork got added, immediately.

    JD (ac62a1)

  140. So, again, given that the majority would like heath care, perhaps more Scandinavian taxation, oversight of food, etc. what now?

    Raise your hand if the above seems to have any basis in reality. If you believe that, you were never a Republican, and certainly never conservative. You are a nanny-statist, through and through.

    JD (ac62a1)

  141. Mike S., if Obama’s message connected why did he lose 10 million votes from four years ago?

    SPQR (768505)

  142. So, again, given that the majority would like heath care, perhaps more Scandinavian taxation, oversight of food, etc. what now?

    I wish you leftists would be honest enough to run on this.

    JD (ac62a1)

  143. I have no illusions. Women overwhelmingly chose “free” contraception over respect for the religious freedom of Catholics.

    Libertarians and social conservatives were united in opposing this, and we failed. Entitlement trumps all moral, constitutional, or economic issues. What is sustainable and wise yielded to what people want now.

    Ours is an adolescent society. We need to work for the long-term education of the populace, and in the meantime do whatever we can now to restrain the foolishness. I don’t know whether this can be turned around, but I don’t see that we have any options.

    But I, for one, will not abandon adulthood.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  144. Would only add there’s nothing conservative about borrowing from China to send Marines halfway around the world to Islmaic dumps to be God’s Love We deliver with AR15s.They don’t share our vlaues,a nd theya re of no vlaue to us at all. The internventionism has gotten us nothing and taken us nowhere. Let them kill each other. Among the questions about Bengahzi is why we are in such places at all.

    Bugg (c8b43a)

  145. I have a guess about why the campaign was not a blowout for Romney. He had very little money available during the months leading up to the convention. During that time, the Obama campaign ran lots of ads in Ohio and other battleground states demonizing Romney and Bain Capital, thus defining Romney without any pushback for months.

    Instead of defending Romney, superpacs like American Crossroads focused their ads on attacking Obama. So for months before the GOP Convention, the only thing heard about Romney was negative.

    Meanwhile, the material to defend Romney was on his website, including testimonials from companies he rescued. All American Crossroads had to do was broadcast some of the stuff at Romney’s website. But they must have been afraid to do so, either because the Romney website did nit include a waiver of copyright, or because American Crossroads wanted to avoid any appearance of coordinating with the Romney campaign.

    Andrew (960c5e)

  146. Great link, SPQR!

    The GOP has a problem in countering media narratives. They run away from candidates over meaningless soundbites

    We saw this in the primary. This is how we can to nominate the most democrat like of our potential nominees. I understand the logic of that. If you’re used to seeing republicans rejected, you want the most inoffensive one you can find because Obama losing is top priority.

    Unfortunately, that didn’t work and rarely works. We need someone who commands respect because of their principles.

    Dustin (73fead)

  147. _____________________________________________

    personally I’m done with the deranged gay-bashy fetus worshiping white trash loser party.

    happyfeet, I’ve detected the inner-liberal in you for quite awhile, which makes you an interesting example to study. You’re probably similar to all the Sybil-type people in the following country. Folks who are loaded down with cognitive dissonance, who are ideologically schizoid and quite easily — and perhaps inadvertently — their own worst enemies.

    BTW, the people of France (who elected a Socialist as president recently—and who also are seeing their country now wheeze and wobble to an even greater degree), meet the people of Argentina. People of Argentina, meet the people of France.

    abcnews.go.com, AP, 11-8-12:

    Thousands of people are using social networks to mobilize a huge march Thursday night against President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, organizing what they hope will be the country’s biggest anti-government protest in more than a decade. Angered by rising inflation, violent crime and high-profile corruption, and afraid Fernandez will try to hold onto power indefinitely by ending constitutional term limits, the protesters plan to bang pots and march on the iconic obelisk in Argentina’s capital.

    [The current president's supporters] dismiss the protesters as part of a wealthy elite, or beholden to discredited opposition parties, and misled by news coverage from media companies representing the country’s most powerful economic interests.

    “No more lying,” [Kirchner] said during a speech Wednesday. “It’s all that I ask of all the Argentines, that we speak with the truth. And if you don’t like the government because of its human rights policies, say it’s because of human rights; if you don’t like the government because of those who used to be poor and you could hire them for nothing, and now you can’t, that you say so as well.”

    Fernandez was re-elected by a landslide 54 percent over a divided opposition just a year ago but saw her approval rating fall to 31 percent in a nationwide survey in September by the firm Management & Fit. The survey of 2,259 people, which had an error margin of about two percentage points, also said 65 percent of respondents disapproved of her opponents’ performance.

    Crime is the biggest concern for many marchers. Many media provide a daily diet of stories about increasingly bold home invasion robberies, in which armed bands tie up families until victims hand over the cash that many Argentines keep in their homes. Many people stopped putting money in banks after the government froze savings accounts and devalued the currency in 2002. Adding to frustrations, the vast majority of the crimes are never solved, while the death toll is rising.

    Inflation also upsets many, as the government’s much-criticized index puts inflation at about 10 percent annually, or as little as a third of the estimates of private economists. As a result, real estate transactions have slowed to a standstill, given the difficulty of estimating the future value of contracts. And unions that won 25 percent pay hikes only a few months ago are threatening to strike again unless the government comes up with more.

    Sen. Anibal Fernandez, who was the president’s Cabinet chief and now leads the governing party’s legislators, called the idea of general discontent “an invention of one faction of the ultra-right.” He accused organizers of being funded by wealthy landowners and supporters of the 1976-1983 dictatorship.

    [T]he president…issued a warning to those gathering Thursday night: “Don’t anyone think that I’m going to go against my own politics, those that I’ve defended since I was 15 years old. These are the politics I believe in and this is the country I believe in.”

    ^ Some political analysts have been mentioning that racial-ethnic factors and issues like anti-illegal-immigration are the impetus for the loony liberalism in America. Keep in mind that thousands of miles south of the USA, Argentina is 97 percent white, largely of European origins.

    Don’t cry for us, Argentina.

    Mark (66bba6)

  148. JD, at 138: it seems to me that it’s possible to believe that the majority of voters want higher taxes, socialized medicine, etc, without yourself wanting these things. Someone who holds that set of views could be as conservative as they come, and simply convinced that conservatives are currently losing.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  149. DN, at 125: Bush came out of Texas. The Texas Republican party has a much more sympathetic relationship with Latinos than – say – the California Republican party. His “pandering to Latinos”, as you put it, was a result of, and consistent with, positions he’d held throughout his public life, and which were well within the mainstream of Texas Republicanism.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  150. > This is in violation of the fact that it’s about Gay rights vs the Rights of Christians.

    IGotBupkis: the NY law, and the WA law, both contain *specific* clauses saying that no church can be forced to perform gay marriages against its will.

    The law that causes the rights of Christians to be violated is NOT the gay marriage law, it’s the general anti-discrimination law. The photographer in New Mexico, and the B&B owner in New England, are in trouble for violating a general law that prohibits people who provide services to the public from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. State recognition of marriage has nothing to do with it.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  151. it seems to me that it’s possible to believe that the majority of voters want higher taxes, socialized medicine, etc,

    I have no doubt it is POSSIBLE, but it doesn’t poll, and is not reflected in the public consensus. Do you know any conservative that believes that, either as an individual belief or a reflection of the populace as a whole?

    JD (318f81)

  152. I tried to reply Mr mark but that comment won’t go through for some reason and I can’t figure out why

    happyfeet (34b6ab)

  153. I wish there would be a leftist honesty enough to run on a platform of purely socialized medicine, Scandi levels of taxation, Govt control of food consumption, etc ….

    JD (318f81)

  154. JD, I think you missed the point of my comment. I’m saying that it’s not inconsistent with conservatism to be opposed to higher taxes and socialized medicine while believing that the majority want higher taxes and socialized medicine; it could simply be a result of despair.

    You seemed above to be alleging that anyone who believes that the majority wants higher taxes and socialized medicine is a nanny-stater. I think that’s a dramatic overstatement.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  155. Haven’t read the comments here — just responding to the post.

    dbnr is right. The Republican party will continue to see its influence diminish unless it abandons some of the social issues that it clings to.

    Take gay marriage. When I hear conservatives talk about the tenets of conservative philosophy — limited government, individual freedoms — I always wonder why they are on the anti-gay marriage side of the issue. It seems to me a missed opportunity and conservatives should have been leading the charge on that. In fact, most younger conservatives really have no problem with gay marriage at all.

    The GOP also could loosen up on immigration.

    And finally, I get a sense from some quarters of the right that politics is like the Monty Python sketch “The Argument Clinic”. If the left says “X”, the right says “Not X” in an almost knee jerk reaction. I’m thinking mainly about climate change science. Al Gore was the messenger, so it seems that many conservatives felt compelled to dismiss and/or mock the subject in its entirety, rather than accept it and propose solutions which still fit within conservative principles.

    Right now, conservatives are beholden to their “base” which seems to the Moral Majority (as it was called in the 1980s). And that has killed the GOP. Legislating morality just doesn’t fly in the 21st century.

    Kman (5576bf)

  156. DN, at 125: Bush came out of Texas. The Texas Republican party has a much more sympathetic relationship with Latinos than – say – the California Republican party. His “pandering to Latinos”, as you put it, was a result of, and consistent with, positions he’d held throughout his public life, and which were well within the mainstream of Texas Republicanism.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/8/2012

    This is the difference between leadership and political prime time BS.

    This is why a Texas Governor would be strong on border control and not turn off latino voters whereas a politician with no real responsibilities might stake out bolder, unrealistic positions to out flank the people who are constrained by reality and experience. That won the primary, but it lost the general.

    That’s why I’m more impressed by leaders with an actual record of government spending discipline and jobs performance over those with the ‘plan’.

    Dustin (73fead)

  157. And finally, I get a sense from some quarters of the right that politics is like the Monty Python sketch “The Argument Clinic”. If the left says “X”, the right says “Not X” in an almost knee jerk reaction.

    Kmart said this?! Ms Doubtfire must be immune to cognitive dissonance.

    Oh, the GOP is not against immigration, liar.

    The only people talking about social issues are the Dems. Small ball is all you’ve got.

    JD (318f81)

  158. You seemed above to be alleging that anyone who believes that the majority wants higher taxes and socialized medicine is a nanny-stater. I think that’s a dramatic overstatement.

    I must have misunderstood you. I do think that if you believe that the majority favors socialized medicine, Scandi levels of taxation, Govt control of food consumption,etc you do so in the face of all available evidence. Sure, a conservative in despair over Obama’s re-election mint entertain that thought, but it should be discarded every bit as quickly.

    JD (318f81)

  159. > The only people talking about social issues are the Dems. Small ball is all you’ve got.

    That’s really not true, though.

    I put forth as en exhibit the re-election camaigns of Stephen Saland, R-NY, and Roy McDonald, R-NY. Both of these gentlemen voted for the state’s same sex marriage law.

    Roy McDonald lost in the subsequent Republican primary, where the opposition to him was centered on his vote on same-sex marriage. He then (despite having won the Independence party nomination) ended his campaign and did not run in the general election.

    Stephen Saland won the Republican party primary, but disaffected Conservatives objected to his support for same-sex marriage and ran a strident campaign against him.(See http://statepolitics.lohudblogs.com/2012/11/07/conservative-party-chair-steve-saland-did-this-to-himself/ for some local reporting on this). At the moment, it’s not clear who won that race; the Conservative candidate drew 15% or so of the vote, and as a result the Democrat is up 1500 votes with 10,000 late absentees to be counted.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  160. Our problem is not that the US has rejected conservative ideology exit polls show this clearly.

    SPQR (768505)

  161. Right now, conservatives are beholden to their “base” which seems to the Moral Majority (as it was called in the 1980s). And that has killed the GOP. Legislating morality just doesn’t fly in the 21st century.
    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 7:33 am

    – By all means, please list the ways in which the GOP is attempting to ‘legislate morality’. Go!

    Icy (05efaf)

  162. _______________________________________

    The Republican party will continue to see its influence diminish unless it abandons some of the social issues that it clings to.

    Interesting that you say that, since one of the most — if not THE most — basic of all socio-cultural controversies, and which presumably has become less of a hot-button issue through the decades, is running contrary to what conventional wisdom estimates is the trend of public sentiment.

    Gallup.com, May 2012:

    Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for “pro-choice” — from 1998 through 2008 — to a close division between the two positions since 2009. However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.

    Mark (66bba6)

  163. By all means, please list the ways in which the GOP is attempting to ‘legislate morality’. Go!

    Well, laws that seek to limit access to abortion and/or contraception, and laws seeking to prevent gay marriage.

    Kman (5576bf)

  164. Interesting that you say that, since one of the most — if not THE most — basic of all socio-cultural controversies, and which presumably has become less of a hot-button issue through the decades, is running contrary to what conventional wisdom estimates is the trend of public sentiment.

    But Mark, even if the pro-life position is “ahead” today, the right still marginalizes itself by embracing it so hard core. It’s not like the pro-life position is EVER going to be embraced by 75 or 80 percent of the public… so the GOP should just leave it alone.

    Kman (5576bf)

  165. Kman, i’m a gay guy, and I think that 162 is unfair.

    There is no legislation in any state in the country which prevents gay marriage.

    There is, however, legislation which prevents states from *recognizing* gay marriage.

    I support state recognition of same sex marriages. I voted against Proposition 8.

    But having the state not recognize it is not the same as preventing it or banning it.

    I was a married man, in the eyes of my spouse, my friends, my family, my coworkers, my community, the day I swore my vows to my husband. The state didn’t seek to punish me for that; it didn’t try to prevent it, or convince the people who believe I am married not to; it did not arrest me for claiming to be married even though the state didn’t recognize it.

    So, in my view, it’s just wrong to say the state is preventing gay marriage. Gay marriages are happening. It’s more correct to say the states that don’t recognize gay marriages are ignoring gay marriage.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  166. Take gay marriage. When I hear conservatives talk about the tenets of conservative philosophy — limited government, individual freedoms — I always wonder why they are on the anti-gay marriage side of the issue. It seems to me a missed opportunity and conservatives should have been leading the charge on that. In fact, most younger conservatives really have no problem with gay marriage at all.

    I realize after the past election that simple things are hard to grasp for the dimmer bulbs amongst us, Kmart being premiere in that regard, but government has very little compelling interest in most people’s bedroom frivolities.

    The only compelling interest, really, is when they enter into an arrangement that can produce children.

    There is no conservative argument for acknowledging any other relationship. None. So when people like Kmart contend that “young conservatives” have no problem with the falsehood that gay+marriage=”gay marriage” the answer is that they aren’t conservative.

    Because the gay marriage argument is, like the HHS mandate, an argument that the Constitution is a nullity. First Amendment? Never heard of it! You peons have “Freedom of Worship” in this Obamanation. But not “the free exercise” of religion formerly guaranteed by that Amendment.

    It’s a friggin’ hobby now. You can go to whatever house of ridiculous ancient mystical ritual and engage in whatever nonsense you wish on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. But the rest of the week the government owns you. And if you enter into business you have no right to a conscience. The government will tell you what you may or may not do. Not your conscience.

    You will pay for abortifacients. You will cater that gay marriage.

    Gay marriage conservative? Yes, just as conservative as Nanny Bloomberg’s ban on Big Gulps.

    Steve57 (320590)

  167. This rant from a Muslim former Republican is an interesting perspective.

    aphrael (f1d203)

  168. There is no legislation in any state in the country which prevents gay marriage.

    There is, however, legislation which prevents states from *recognizing* gay marriage.

    I’m speaking in shorthand when I say “preventing gay marriage”. Obviously, that’s what I meant — preventing recognition of gay marriage. Sorry for not being clearer.

    Kman (5576bf)

  169. Steve57, I don’t follow. How does the state of New York recognizing my marriage mean that the first amendment is a nullity?

    aphrael (f1d203)

  170. I know what the GOP should do to win.

    banned commenter (c310a4)

  171. ” And that has killed the GOP. Legislating morality just doesn’t fly in the 21st century.
    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 7:33 am”

    Yeah, cuz the GOP just can’t win anything anymore. Except the Presidency in 2000, 2004, the House in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, 30 state governments, including the governors.

    Yup, Republican Party’s dead alright.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  172. Steve57:

    The only compelling interest, really, is when they enter into an arrangement that can produce children.

    I don’t see how the government has any interest at all in whether or not people have children, much less a COMPELLING one.

    And even if it does, recognizing gay marriage doesn’t prevent straight married couples from having children. I mean, that’s a real head-scratcher.

    Again, I hear these conservative arguments and they just don’t strike me as “conservative” at all. Certainly not “limited government conservative”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  173. I think the GOP should formulate their strategy based on advise from Ms Doubtfire and IMP. And abandon their principles in the process.

    Aphrael – I was referring to the national stage, I have no doubt that there are social issues being discussed somewhere.

    JD (ac62a1)

  174. If gay marriage is the issue harming the GOP, why did Obama wait until this year to reverse his own opposition?

    SPQR (f6798a)

  175. If gay marriage is the issue harming the GOP, why did Obama wait until this year to reverse his own opposition?

    I just used it as an example. I think (like the commenter that Paterrico posted about) the GOP is harmed by its slave-like devotion to social issues in general.

    Kman (5576bf)

  176. Well, laws that seek to limit access to abortion and/or contraception, and laws seeking to prevent gay marriage.
    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 8:03 am

    – Uh-huh. So, I guess you 1) Don’t care about states rights; and 2) Don’t hold with the “safe, legal and RARE” meme touted by your fellow lefties.
    And what law is there that limits access to contraception? Are you talking about ‘conscience’ statutes that allow a pharmacist to choose what he/she will have on-hand? Funny how, in the liberal mindset, granting liberty has the effect of legislating morality.
    Oh, and there isn’t a single law on the books that ‘prevents’ what you label as “gay marriage”.

    Icy (05efaf)

  177. “I recognize that there are issues where cultural conservatism clashes with libertarian attitudes”

    This is why the Republicans lost many of their elections

    Trickledown economics-
    This is the other reason.

    The majority of the country doesn’t like a Republican party that hates big government unless it want’s to come into your bedroom. Period. Not even after 20 years of the hard sell on those social issues. Not even if you call them names like RINO or whatever.

    People are willing to ignore social issues though as long as you can get their money right.

    But when you combine annoying culture war ideology with lousy economic theories, you know, the ones that were supposed to bring about all kinds of prosperity for all Americans but instead inflated a real estate bubble that destroyed the global economy, those economic theories that Mitt Romney was still pushing in his campaign, and you just aren’t going to convince enough people to vote for you.

    Find better economic theories than trickledown.

    Stop trying to legislate social issues (you can still support efforts to convince people you are RIGHT about those social issues).

    Go back to viewing politics as a debate and not a war, how can you tell someone that they are “not a real American” or not a patriot or are just “stupid” or don’t think or blah blah blah and then turn around and say “now vote for me coz I’m right and you are wrong” most people I know react to that sort of “persuasion” with the one fingered salute.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  178. 163. But Mark, even if the pro-life position is “ahead” today, the right still marginalizes itself by embracing it so hard core. It’s not like the pro-life position is EVER going to be embraced by 75 or 80 percent of the public… so the GOP should just leave it alone.

    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 8:07 am

    Again, pure idiocy from Kmart. But I repeat myself. The only pro-life posisition possible from the executive or legislative brance of the USG is that they’d select and approve judges who would return the issue to the states.

    That’s it. They can’t “force” women to bear their rapists’ kids or any such lunacy that is peddled by the press.

    164. There is no legislation in any state in the country which prevents gay marriage.

    There is, however, legislation which prevents states from *recognizing* gay marriage.

    … the states that don’t recognize gay marriages are ignoring gay marriage.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/8/2012 @ 8:07 am

    I’m approaching this from a business perspective, not a state perspective, but from my perspective that is exactly as it should be.

    I realize it goes unnoticed but as a business owner I’m pretty much free to ignore any marriage I want at the moment. Except when anti-discrimination laws intrude. Then I’m compelled.

    It gets lost in the noise, but up until now anti-discrimination laws r.e. marriage didn’t actually compel anyone to participate in what any religion would regard as a sin. The Bible, for instance, doesn’t have a commandment against interracial marriage. That will come as a shock to the crowd that gets its history from Oliver Stone and its news from Jon Stewart, I know. But there it is.

    aphrael, I realize you’re a gay man. So riddle me this. What compelling interest does the state have in your relationships that would justify forcing some individual to acknowledge it when that acknowledgement would go against what that individual believes he must practice on a daily basis to save his eternal soul?

    That really is the question.

    I’m not asking you, aphrael, to opine on the validity of that person’s beliefs. Just why that person must be compelled against his conscience to go against them.

    I’m in the hospitality business, aphrael. You wouldn’t know what I do or don’t believe if you met me on any given day. Treating you or anyone else with dignity and respect doesn’t go against my conscience. On the other hand I am Catholic so if you asked me to participate in some special event then depending upon what it was I might be compelled to say no.

    Essentially Kmart believes there is an argument for you to treat me, and my regard for my own autonomy, with less respect then I would freely give you and yours.

    Can you make it?

    Steve57 (320590)

  179. 171.I hear these conservative arguments and they just don’t strike me as “conservative” at all. Certainly not “limited government conservative”.

    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 8:16 am

    So make the conservative argument for forcing people to violate their conscience.

    Steve57 (320590)

  180. I haven’t read all of the above, given that I’ll give 2 cents.

    First, the election was a referendum on people’s perceptions, “perceptions=-truth”. if over 50% of voters think our current economy is the result of George Bush and his policies and Dems have no part of the blame and Obama has done the best anyone, even Bill Clinton, could have done, then it makes perfect sense why Obama would be re-elected.

    But, if you think Obama has done things to make the situation worse, used the “stimulus” to reward political cronies, and is going to stand in the way of an economic boom that would have taken place in Ohio and PA and the nation due to domestic oil and the Keystone pipeline then the election would have had a different outcome.

    Moynihan must be spinning in his grave (in fact, maybe someone should go find it and hoof his body up to a turbine!!). When I was growing up I thought it was about knowing the facts and then having “an adult conversation” on competing thoughts on how to deal with the facts. I don’t know if that was the case “back then” or simply my already having succumbed to the lies. But for years the main battle is the propaganda war, even to the point of need in to check the “fact checkers that the average idiot voter thinks can be trusted.

    So in one way, it doesn’t make one bit of d*** difference what you do on policies or “outreach” or anything as long as one can’t win at least an equal say in the “propaganda” war. When I say that, I mean that one can get the truth or even a truthful presentation of differing views expressed.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  181. Seriously, Kmart, ‘splain to us how “limited government” means a government big enough to make people do things against their will.

    Steve57 (320590)

  182. Besides, if conservatives want to expand their base rather than simply maintain a holding action, they’re going to have to win converts from the other side. The fewer irrelevant deal-breakers, the better.

    And we should win converts by supporting a redefinition of marriage?

    The majority of the country doesn’t like a Republican party that hates big government unless it want’s to come into your bedroom.

    What exactly are these bedroom policies?

    I was a married man, in the eyes of my spouse, my friends, my family, my coworkers, my community, the day I swore my vows to my husband. The state didn’t seek to punish me for that; it didn’t try to prevent it, or convince the people who believe I am married not to; it did not arrest me for claiming to be married even though the state didn’t recognize it.

    So, in my view, it’s just wrong to say the state is preventing gay marriage. Gay marriages are happening. It’s more correct to say the states that don’t recognize gay marriages are ignoring gay marriage.

    Contrast that with what happened to polygamists in 19th century Utah.

    Well, laws that seek to limit access to abortion and/or contraception, and laws seeking to prevent gay marriage.

    Merely refusing to force insurance companies to cover contraception in their basic policies without co-pay limits access to contraception?

    I guess in the same sense that refusing to force Mercury Insurance to cover AK-47′s in their basic policy without co-pay limits my access to AK-47′s.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  183. What compelling interest does the state have in your relationships that would justify forcing some individual to acknowledge it when that acknowledgement would go against what that individual believes he must practice on a daily basis to save his eternal soul?

    That really is the question.

    That’s a question so loaded it doesn’t make any sense.

    I don’t know much about how you practice your religion, but are you suggesting that acknowledging the existence of something you consider sinful makes you a sinner yourself?

    If not, then you have no worries. The state can recognize gay marriage; and you can still consider it a damnable practice.

    Kman (5576bf)

  184. I just used it as an example.

    It is an example that did not work.

    The American public is willing to tolerate state recognition of same-sex “marriage”; they do not want to mandate recognition coast-to-coast.

    And even if it does, recognizing gay marriage doesn’t prevent straight married couples from having children. I mean, that’s a real head-scratcher.

    What is the purpose of same-sex “marriage”?

    In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the
    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions
    bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the
    opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and
    responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples
    by the marriage laws
    of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that
    “spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits,
    protections, rights and responsibilities
    under law as are granted to
    spouses in a marriage”.Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
    Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)

    Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the
    civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis
    that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of
    “segregation”, GLAD Brief in Opinions of the Jusrtices to the Senate, SJC-09163, at 12, because they denied the
    social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would
    “mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual
    counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of
    whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and
    responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”,
    Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would
    not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not
    be recognized by the rest of society
    as being as valued as
    heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13

    And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup.
    Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently
    stigmatizing” and “inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of
    Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.

    And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of
    the “special status” of marriage, not just
    the “bundle of rights” which the civil union law would allow them. See
    Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13,
    quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at
    289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage
    is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual
    relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be
    so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts,
    but the solely due to the construction some people choose to put upon it.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  185. Trickledown economics-
    This is the other reason.

    FWIW, I think that phrase is a lie and garbage and a false and oversimplified characterization of a basic important principle. The answer is not to “give up ‘trickle down’ economics”, but to explain the truth about what supposed “trickle down economics” really is.

    For example, if you decide no filthy rich person should find it easy to spend his ill-gotten (assumed) gain on a yacht because it is not fair only some people have yachts, then tax yacht sales 75%.
    Fine, yacht sales go down, yacht companies go out of business, carpenters that make yachts lose their jobs. Importers of mahogany (from a sustained forest no less) go out of business. Foresters in a 3rd world country burn their forests to grow corn to feed their family for a few years.
    And Obama and liked minded people are happy and feel good about themselves because things are more fair because fewer rich dirty pigs have yachts.

    yeah, that’s real helpful.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  186. That’s a question so loaded it doesn’t make any sense.

    You clearly don’t get the whole “free exercise” of religion thingy, Kmart.

    I don’t know much about how you practice your religion,

    And this should be a state matter why?

    but are you suggesting that acknowledging the existence of something you consider sinful makes you a sinner yourself?

    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 9:11 am

    Like I said, simple things are beyond your grasp. Which hardly recommends you as the analyst to recognize what ails the GOP.

    I am not saying religious people refust to acknowledge what exists. They refuse to participate in it.

    You mission should you accept it (and I see you won’t as you’ll fail) is to explain why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be forced to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    Steve57 (320590)

  187. And how that’s limited government, Kmart. Yeah, freedom!

    Steve57 (320590)

  188. At one point the numbers were:
    McCain 59.9 million; Obama 69.4 million
    Romney 57.7 million; Obama 60.5 million.

    The fact that 2.2 million less turned out to vote for Romney almost was alone the difference in popular vote.

    Yes, we are having this discussion because everyone wants to know what went wrong and what to do instead. The scientist and physician in me says to get as much information and see what really fits together, not let everyone’s knee-jerk pet argument prevail.

    Re the demographic shift- there are more elected Hispanics for the Repubs than dems, so why do Dems get pegged as the “pro-Hispanic” party?
    As the NM gov said, once she knew what conservatives really believed she realized she was a Conservative and fit better as a Repub all along.
    More Hispanics need to learn that, than Repubs adopt ideas that they think will get more Hispanic votes.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  189. You mission should you accept it (and I see you won’t as you’ll fail) is to explain why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be forced to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    He won’t. Not any more than he is “forced”, under current law, to do a photo shoot for a gay person’s birthday.

    Kman (5576bf)

  190. Edwood @176 makes a valid point on his comment, listen to him. The world has changed, America is changing. The only thing not changing is the GOP. Change or be extinct.

    banned commenter (dc1df5)

  191. Steve57, your question at 177 seems bizarre to me because in essence you’re asking me to defend Kman’s argument, which I’m not well placed to do, as I don’t understand his argument fully.

    So let me make my own. :)

    My expectation of you, as a member of the hospitality profession, is that you treat me the same way you’d treat anyone else; that you not tell me that you’re not going to rent me a room in your hotel because you disapprove of my lifestyle, that you serve me as a member of the public the same way that you’d serve any other member of the public. Just as you have a right to expect that I, as a software engineer, not refuse to program for you because I disapprove of your religious views – or that I, when i’m wearing my lawyer hat, not refuse to take your case because I disagree with you politically.

    I think that’s a basic expectation that we all have of each other.

    ——

    I’ll repeat my observation from arlier in the thread. The lawsuits, etc, that you’re complaining about have nothing to do with marriage laws. In Hawaii, for example, same-sex marriage isn’t legally recognized. Nor it is in New Mexico. These lawsuits are *entirely* about enforcement of the already existing general non-discrimination ordinances.

    Now, if you want to argue that these non-discrimination ordinances should have been drafted with an exception for discrimination based on honest religious belief, that’s a defensible position (although i’ll ask how you do that without having the state judge whether a religious belief is honestly held, and without allowing anyone to just claim to have a religious belief that they don’t actually have).

    But arguing that same-sex marriage is a bad thing because it will lead to the kind of thing we’ve seen come out of these anti-discrimination ordinances is bizarre, because a same-sex marriage law has never – in the six years they’ve existed in this country, admittedly a short time to judge – led to that outcome; all of the cases stem from general anti-discrimination laws. So bringing them up in a discussion of marriage laws is a non-sequiter.

    aphrael (ca5099)

  192. Michael E, at 183: in *my community*, which is admittedly mostly 20-40something left-leaning urbanites, the social recognition, social value, and social status of marriage ARE independent of the male-female dynamic. My marriage is just as valid in the eyes of my friends as are my friends’ straight marriages.

    aphrael (ca5099)

  193. 188.

    You mission should you accept it (and I see you won’t as you’ll fail) is to explain why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be forced to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    He won’t. Not any more than he is “forced”, under current law, to do a photo shoot for a gay person’s birthday.

    http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court

    Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court

    A New Mexico court confirmed an earlier ruling that any business refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony is in violation of the state’s anti-discrimination laws

    Kmart. Not dealing with reality since (insert birth date here).

    Steve57 (320590)

  194. Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 9:39 am

    You are not paying attention. That is exactly the case in New Mexico where a photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a same sex marriage. Its at the New Mexico Supreme Court. Volohk Conspiracy has details as a contributor there has filed an amicus.

    SPQR (768505)

  195. He won’t. Not any more than he is “forced”, under current law, to do a photo shoot for a gay person’s birthday.
    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 9:39 am

    You haven’t been keeping up with the news.

    Comment by banned commenter — 11/8/2012 @ 9:41 am
    Hmm, a banned commenter got a comment through. That needs to be fixed.

    Bis spater, au revoir, hasta luego mi amigos.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  196. Re the demographic shift- there are more elected Hispanics for the Repubs than dems, so why do Dems get pegged as the “pro-Hispanic” party?
    As the NM gov said, once she knew what conservatives really believed she realized she was a Conservative and fit better as a Repub all along.

    Not only that, that governor (Martinez) took a hard line on immigration so much so that her opponent had to harden her stance. New Mexico is, of course, a “purple” state.

    (The author of the article to which I linked favored a looser immigration policy.)

    Not any more than he is “forced”, under current law, to do a photo shoot for a gay person’s birthday.

    There is nothing inherently homosexual about a birthday.

    And I am not aware of any anti-discrimination law which would force photographers to photograph birthday parties in general.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  197. Sean Trende looks at OH closely and finds missing voters heavily white and unemployed:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

    Evangelicals seemed to have turned out.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  198. In the McCain election 10 million conservatives were estimated to have stayed home and not voted. In this election, an estimated 4 million additional conservatives stayed home and refused to vote. Next election if another moderate or liberal is foisted on us, I will be one of the additional X million more conservatives that will stay home and not vote. We will no longer be the base that turns out and supports the liberal nominees just to go along and get along. New Party will then be established that leaves behind the 25% of moderates and liberals that are controlling the GOP.

    peedoffamerican (b4bdbc)

  199. What I expect as recognition of my freedom of religious belief is that if I believe God made humanity male and female and that God intends marriage to be a complimentary relationship between a man and woman, that I am not labeled a bigot, homophobe, or hater for believing that; and that if a child of mine voiced that opinion in a public school he or she would not be ostracized.

    Should I expect that to be honored by those who want legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  200. What line is longer? welfare line or the line to buy guns.

    mg (31009b)

  201. Let the layoffs commence!

    Icy (05efaf)

  202. In the McCain election 10 million conservatives were estimated to have stayed home and not voted. In this election, an estimated 4 million additional conservatives stayed home and refused to vote. Next election if another moderate or liberal is foisted on us, I will be one of the additional X million more conservatives that will stay home and not vote. We will no longer be the base that turns out and supports the liberal nominees just to go along and get along. New Party will then be established that leaves behind the 25% of moderates and liberals that are controlling the GOP.

    Why did they not turn out during the primaries and vote for someone like Ron Paul?

    I mean, Romney won independents. When was the last time a losing presidential candidate win independents?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  203. I’m not sure if making an issue of whether it is a birthday party or wedding is a major issue.
    Yes, one could say a birthday is a birthday no matter what, but I’m not sure if this is germane to the discussion or a side track, and I don’t have more time now.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  204. 191. Michael E, at 183: in *my community*, which is admittedly mostly 20-40something left-leaning urbanites, the social recognition, social value, and social status of marriage ARE independent of the male-female dynamic. My marriage is just as valid in the eyes of my friends as are my friends’ straight marriages.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/8/2012 @ 9:50 am

    If my question seems bizarre to you, let me rephrase. Obviously as a gay urbanite you’ve had considerable support in your quest to recognize your relationship.

    The market’s there. But why should someone be forced to participate in ceremonies that validate your lifestyle?

    Why should a church, for instance, that sometimes rents out it’s meeting hall for weddings have to rent it out for your wedding if it violates the tenets of that church.

    Why can’t it be able to say, “Sorry, we don’t believe in that and can’t be a party to it, but X up the road might?”

    Steve57 (320590)

  205. ALL leading stock market indices are down again, today.

    Icy (05efaf)

  206. MD – you’re entitled to that belief, and you’re entitled to express that belief in the public sphere.

    But I think that people who believe that that’s a bigoted position to hold are *also* entitled to their beliefs and entitled to express their beliefs in the public sphere. At which point you’re entitled to call them bigots in return.

    (You’ll note that I’ve never called you a bigot for holding that belief, and I’ve argued in more gay-dominated spaces on the internet that it’s possible to hold that religious belief and not hate gay people … but freedom of speech cuts both ways, and it doesn’t carry with it immunity from being called out by people who vehemently disagree with your beliefs).

    aphrael (ca5099)

  207. Steve57:

    I think aphrael and I are on the same page. If your beef is with laws that prevent discrimination, that’s a separate argument.

    But state recognition of gay marriage doesn’t change discrimination laws which already exist. It doesn’t alter any behavior on your part that you can’t already do. Your hypothetical photographer can’t discriminate against gays, and that’s true whether it has to do with a bar mitzvah or a birthday or a gay wedding or a straight wedding. That’s what I mean when I say “Not any more than he is “forced”, under current law, to do a photo shoot for a gay person’s birthday.”

    Kman (5576bf)

  208. Why can’t it be able to say, “Sorry, we don’t believe in that and can’t be a party to it, but X up the road might?”

    First of all, there are exemptions for religious institutions in the gay marriage laws that just got voter approval in Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

    But to the larger point, your question is no different than someone who asks, “Why should I pay taxes which go to a war I don’t support?” The answer is, well, that’s how a democracy works.

    Kman (5576bf)

  209. Ok, Kmart. Got it. You refuse to deal with reality.

    Steve57 (320590)

  210. Off the bat, I wan’t to say I’m a Christian.

    The problem IMO with the GOP is that they’ve lost the social issue debate. I’m a Libertarian. I think a good Christian MUST be a libertarian. Why? For me, it’s about Matt. 20:25-27. The verse-

    25 But Jesus called them to Him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great exercise authority over them.

    26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever wants to become agreat among you shall be your servant,

    27 And whoever wants to be first among you shall be your slave;

    This is why we need freedom! We CANNOT legislate morality and that’s what the GOP has been attempting to do on social issues. Consider Matt. 10:14-

    14 And whoever does not receive you nor hear your words, as you go out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.

    I don’t see Jesus saying, “Form a coalition and petition the government so that you can force them to hear you.”

    Does this mean we have to like abortion, gay marriage, etc? No. But you don’t win hearts and minds with force. I know many are concerned with “moral decline,” I am too. But we should start applying small government in all areas and live your life as an example. One of my favorite sayings is to preach the gospel at all times, only using words when necessary. Conservatives want to win the debate? Start living it. Go to the communities that rely on the government teet and replace it with charity. Show people they don’t need the government. Train up entrepreneurs in low income neighborhoods. Do something to help the people that think the government is their only hope. Get out and be part of the community. Put your money where your mouth is. We can talk about theory all we want, but people need to see it. We need to be able to point to something and say, “See? It’s not just a theory.”

    Jeremiah (9c54b7)

  211. Next election if another moderate or liberal is foisted on us, I will be one of the additional X million more conservatives that will stay home and not vote. We will no longer be the base that turns out and supports the liberal nominees just to go along and get along.

    Comment by peedoffamerican — 11/8/2012 @ 9:57 am

    So who was your preferred candidate?

    Gerald A (138c50)

  212. Ok, Kmart. Got it. You refuse to deal with reality.

    And you refuse to recognize that your moral outrage over gay marriage isn’t superior to anyone else’s moral outrage over other subjects. We all have to accept things we don’t like.

    Kman (5576bf)

  213. 2012

    “We have been arguing against the abortion right for 40 years now, and made very little headway. How much longer are we going to beat this dead horse?”

    1856

    We have been arguing against slavery for 80 years now and made very little headway. How much longer are we going to beat this dead horse?

    Answer to both queries: Until we win.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  214. But to the larger point, your question is no different than someone who asks, “Why should I pay taxes which go to a war I don’t support?” The answer is, well, that’s how a democracy works

    False analogy. There’s a difference between exacting tax payments from citizens to fund government operations (some of which may be objectionable to a citizen), and compelling a citizen from engaging in an activity he objects to.

    That’s why there was a Conscientious Objector exclusion from military service. That’s why a witness at a trial cannot be compelled to swear an oath (he’s asked to affirm it, instead). The government should not be able to compel citizens to perform acts they find objectionable.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  215. the GOP is harmed by its slave-like devotion to social issues in general.

    Whatever. This is all the Dems had this time. This wasn’t an election about social issues. It was about the messianic Obama and a great GOTV and tactical campaign. Kmart wants to talk social issues. The MFM wants to.

    JD (ac62a1)

  216. False analogy. There’s a difference between exacting tax payments from citizens to fund government operations (some of which may be objectionable to a citizen), and compelling a citizen from engaging in an activity he objects to.

    There’s a difference only semantically. If I have a moral objection to a war, but pay taxes, that is compelling behavior from me to support something I morally object to.

    Kman (5576bf)

  217. 211. And you refuse to recognize that your moral outrage over gay marriage isn’t superior to anyone else’s moral outrage over other subjects. We all have to accept things we don’t like.

    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 10:15 am

    Your clumsy attempts to restate my position into a strawman of your own creation won’t succeed.

    You mission should you accept it (and I see you won’t as you’ll fail) is to explain why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be forced to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    You can’t do it. You haven’t even attempted it.

    You’ve failed, moron. And your diversionary tactics are pitiful.

    Steve57 (320590)

  218. Class warfare has become a social issue. If a majority of the people think rich people are inherently evil and owe the rest of us then that is a social doctrine that must be refuted.

    Jeremiah (9c54b7)

  219. MD in philly
    Actually what I don’t buy is that if you give the rich guy an extra 15,000 a year in tax breaks that he is going to go out and invest it in an American based, job creating company instead of another product-free investment ponzi scheme.
    You framed your example as a “class war” thing, mine is a, “we have been racking up debt since Bill Clinton gave us a surplus” and growing the financial services sector of the economy isn’t going to create jobs or help us pay thing.

    Can you see that perhaps what was the right thing to do back in the 80′s (when Prez Reagan brought the capitol gains tax down from its ridiculously high levels to something more reasonable, freeing up all that potential capitol (and greatly lowering an investors risk relative to his potential reward)) may be a much more limited tool in 2012?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  220. How much do you plan on taking to reduce the deficit, Ed? 70%?

    JD (ac62a1)

  221. This [social issues] is all the Dems had this time

    Dems talk about social issues because they win on social issues, and will continue to given the younger generation and new demographics. My point is that the Republican party can’t continue to demonize gays, women, etc. Whenever Rush lays into Sandra Fluke, that’s a gift to the left, and we run with it. So, like the commentor suggests, the right needs to stop feeding the hand that bites them, and get off these losing social issues.

    And it sounds like some people here aren’t going to take that advice. Which suits me fine.

    Kman (5576bf)

  222. 215. There’s a difference only semantically. If I have a moral objection to a war, but pay taxes, that is compelling behavior from me to support something I morally object to.

    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 10:27 am

    Amongst other aspects of reality, Kmart is unfamiliar with the concept of the conscientious objector.

    It’s difficult to be more Catholic than the Pope. Which makes it hard to say you can’t pay your taxes if they’ll go to fund a war since the Catholic Church has a military diocese. They do provide chaplains, you know, which raises the height of the hurdle for arguing that war goes against your Catholic beliefs, for instnace.

    But it’s possible to be more Catholic than the Pope. If you can convince a board that war in general violates your sincerely held moral principles, you can be classified as a conscientious objector.

    So I ask againg:

    Your mission should you accept it (and I see you won’t as you’ll fail) is to explain why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be forced to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    For the amusement of any witnesses, please observe Kmart’s discount Walmart tactic of restating my question, AGAIN, into some form he can (in his own mind) plausibly argue against.

    Steve57 (320590)

  223. You mission should you accept it (and I see you won’t as you’ll fail) is to explain why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be forced to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    You can’t do it. You haven’t even attempted it.

    You’re asking me to explain why there shouldn’t be discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. I don’t know how to help you there, other than to say it’s no different than racial discrimination or gender discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. If you oppose those things, then you already HAVE my explanation as to why some evangelist or muslim who owns a photo studio must be “forced” to work for a gay couple who’s getting married.

    Kman (5576bf)

  224. Thinking that someone demanding govt subside contraception should be called out is “demonizing women”. The mind boggles at the idiotic things Kman writes.

    SPQR (f6798a)

  225. Amongst other aspects of reality, Kmart is unfamiliar with the concept of the conscientious objector

    But the concept of conscientious objector applies in a very limited, one-off, instance. Fighting a war. It’s never been applied to business transactions, and the burden really rests upon you to explain why it should.

    As a side note, nobody is going to construe photography of a gay wedding as an endorsement of gay marriage. Catholic hospitals, after all, treat gay people with AIDS, but nobody thinks they are condoning gay sex.

    Kman (5576bf)

  226. And if “Democrats win on social issues” was true, Obama would not have waited until this year to change his position on the issue. A change motivated. by defections in his base not independants.

    SPQR (f6798a)

  227. Thinking that someone demanding govt subside contraception should be called out is “demonizing women”. The mind boggles at the idiotic things Kman writes.

    Good point, if only I had written that.

    Kman (5576bf)

  228. SPQR, I figger the longer I draw this out the better.

    It’s important to demonstrate that people like Kmart can’t tell shit from shinola. It’s not important or even possible to teach people like Kmart to tell shit from shinola.

    Steve57 (320590)

  229. Why is it so hard for Republican candidates for congress who are conservatives, evangelicals, etc to answer the gotcha social issues questions by saying that “I am running for a national position. Those issues are best solved by you here in (pick your state) rather than some unelected, unaccountable bozo in Washington DC.” Shove all this stuff down to the many states to solve. Cheers -

    agimarc (324b03)

  230. “By all means, please list the ways in which the GOP is attempting to ‘legislate morality’.”

    Silly comment.

    Dang near ALL laws are an attempt to legislate morality.

    Why is it against the law to commit murder?

    ‘Cause it’s wrong to murder folks.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  231. A change motivated. by defections in his base not independants.

    Not just his base. Not just independents. It’s a new world.

    Kman (5576bf)

  232. Kman thinks I misrepresented his comment.

    Luckily for him hypocrisy isn’t fatal.

    SPQR (f6798a)

  233. There’s a difference only semantically. If I have a moral objection to a war, but pay taxes, that is compelling behavior from me to support something I morally object to.

    There is a difference between compelling support and compelling participation. I thought I made that clear. Apparently, not to you.

    Government can compel me to accept a same sex marriage as legal, but it should not compel me to participate in the ceremony in any capacity.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  234. Mr. mg the fact that prissypants romney after 6 years and untold millions squandered actually got fewer votes than coward mccain is a Valuable Insight an abashed Team R might could use to help steer their rickety oxcart back into the mainstream.

    And I helped!

    Comment by happyfeet — 11/8/2012 @ 3:25 am

    In the McCain election 10 million conservatives were estimated to have stayed home and not voted. In this election, an estimated 4 million additional conservatives stayed home and refused to vote. Next election if another moderate or liberal is foisted on us, I will be one of the additional X million more conservatives that will stay home and not vote. We will no longer be the base that turns out and supports the liberal nominees just to go along and get along. New Party will then be established that leaves behind the 25% of moderates and liberals that are controlling the GOP.

    Comment by peedoffamerican — 11/8/2012 @ 9:57 am

    Romney likely got about the same votes as McCain.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/07/where-did-the-voters-go-nowhere/

    So everybody can stop going on about how the alleged underperformance of Romney proves “moderates” are turning off the base.

    I remain convinced the hurricane may have altered the outcome or come very close, which would then knock down the whole idea that this election necessarily means the GOP has to rethink what it stands for.

    If there’s some policy area that needs to be examined it’s how to get back the Hispanics that voted for Bush. Can it be done without a “me too” imitation of the Dems on immigration?

    Gerald A (138c50)

  235. I should also add everybody can stop going on about how conservative social positions proves the GOP can’t win.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  236. Government can compel me to accept a same sex marriage as legal, but it should not compel me to participate in the ceremony in any capacity.

    Distinguish what you just wrote from:

    “Government can compel me to accept that blacks are entitled to equal rights, but I shouldn’t have to serve them at my lunch counter.”

    (I’m not accusing you of anything — I don’t know you. I’m just not seeing any difference between the two arguments).

    Kman (5576bf)

  237. The social positions were the only arguments made by Obama. I’m 30 and all the people I know that voted against Romney based it on their misunderstanding of his stance on social issues. As long as they can find Repubs talking about them, they’ll be able to hang it around the nominee whether he believes it or not.

    Jeremiah (9c54b7)

  238. :)

    banned commenter (139552)

  239. This is why we need freedom! We CANNOT legislate morality and that’s what the GOP has been attempting to do on social issues.

    Comment by Jeremiah — 11/8/2012 @ 10:12 am

    Bullsheittt! Morality is the only thing we can legislate. What in the hell do you think laws that deal with murder, robbery, theft, DUI, perjury, etc,etc,etc, if they are not laws based on morality? The only good laws are laws that have a basis morally.

    Taxation is another moral law, or should be. Taxes are supposed to be collected that support the common good (you know for those things that the Constitution actually allows for), and not collected for redistribution of wealth which is immoral. If a law doesn’t have a moral basis, then it has no justification whatsoever.

    The question is whose morality? Well since this country was founded upon Judaeo/Christian principles, how about those that are already written down in the Bible and are unchanging. If you try to base them on a mans personally held morals, they are as fleeting as the wind. I am not advocating for a theocracy, but they were used as a successful guide in this country for over 2 hundred years.

    So who was your preferred candidate?

    Comment by Gerald A — 11/8/2012 @ 10:15 am

    I was not overly thrilled with the list but here are my top three that I could have lived with.

    1. Herman Cain who was falsely accused and hounded out of the primary by a scared lamestream media. He had a plan to replace the corrupt income tax system and eliminating several Cabinet Dept. And making the US a more business friendly environment for the creation of jobs. Wonder whatever happened to all of his accusers? Herman Cain would also have stopped the racism of the lamestream media in its tracks, and demolished Preezyboy in the debates.

    2. Hell, I could have even supported Newt Gingrinch. Even after he made that crazy commercial with SanFran Nan, which he later repented of doing. He would have demolished Preezy Obeyme in the debates and made him to look just like their mascot, a Jackass. Some might think that Newt was more moderate than he is, but look at his record. Engineered the takeover of the House, and made Bill Clintoon his biatch. Forced welfare reform down Bill’s throat, actually did cut spending and spending growth to the point where Billy Boy claims that HE was the first to have a balanced budget. It wasn’t really balanced, but it was closer than we have had for years.

    3. Rick Santorum, at least he was a conservative, even though some of his votes in the Senate didn’t always seem to line up that way, until you examine the underlying reasons. I think he should have waited a few more years myself, maybe moved to another State where an actual conservative could have stood a chance to win as governor and governed there first. Then run on the basis of having reformed that state. But what the hell, he couldn’t have done any worse if had been selected, after all the GOP nominee lost the election.

    While no nominee is perfect, we have to support the ones that most closely align with our values. Next time one of these lamestream media idiots starts to crucify a candidate unjustly, we need to turn the tables and use those same tactics against them and see how they like it. Report rumors and lies, get investigated and have your personal life invaded. That’s what it will take to stop the partisanship of the press in its tracks. Expose them for the hypocrites they are and make them gunshy when it comes to mudslinging. When that happens, they will be more careful in reporting just the facts and not innuendo.

    peedoffamerican (02aee3)

  240. “Yeah, cuz the GOP just can’t win anything anymore. Except the Presidency in 2000, 2004, the House in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, 30 state governments, including the governors.”

    “Yup, Republican Party’s dead alright.”

    Yeah, and that’s a big improvement over what the Republicans were winning in the period 1932-1992. So, why would they want to change their overall approach?

    It’s the Democrats who ought to be thinking about changing their overall approach, not the Republicans…if winning elections is what it’s all about.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  241. Comment by MD in Philly — 11/8/2012 @ 9:20 am

    Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell decimated the yacht/boat building business with his Luxury Tax on yachts, and did a fair job on the General Aviation Industry too.
    He caused a lot of unemployment in his home state of Maine, plus all of New England.
    Someone once ran the numbers and found that the payouts for unemployment were something like 10X’s the amount of Luxury Tax collected.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  242. poa, this old white guy enthusiastically supported Herman Cain.
    It must have been Racist!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  243. Bullsheittt! Morality is the only thing we can legislate. What in the hell do you think laws that deal with murder, robbery, theft, DUI, perjury, etc,etc,etc, if they are not laws based on morality?

    I would suggest that they are based on ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they happen to coincide with your concepts of “morality”, fine… but they are not BASED on morality.

    Kman (5576bf)

  244. Does anyone have a good answer to Heather MacDonald’s numbers that 3MM less Republicans supported Romney than supported McCain, and Romney lost by 2.7MM votes?
    Why did the White vote desert the GOP, because it is obvious that only white guys are registered Republicans?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  245. Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 11/8/2012 @ 11:23 am

    See #232.

    The white vote deserted the GOP? Romney got the highest percent of the white vote since 1988.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  246. kmart, weren’t murder, robbery, etc., crimes pre-dating the Declaration of Independence?
    If so, what concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were they based upon, since IIRC that was the point-in-time that the phrase came into common usage?

    Foolishness, and Stupidity, that large must be painful.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  247. “Government can compel me to accept that blacks are entitled to equal rights, but I shouldn’t have to serve them at my lunch counter.”

    First, the Libertarians will tell you that a private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone. It’s not in his best interests to do so, however.

    But there is a difference between me as a restaurateur not allowing certain law-abiding people on the premises when I allow other law-abiding people on the premises, and forcing me to go somewhere that I don’t want to go.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  248. Well, if that is true, why did 3MM less Registered Republicans vote for Romney than voted for McCain; because as we all know, only white, racist, bitter-clingers are registered rethuglikkans?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  249. 246 is in response to 243

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  250. “I would suggest that they are based on ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they happen to coincide with your concepts of “morality”, fine… but they are not BASED on morality.”

    Baloney.

    It’s against the law to rob and murder because it’s wrong behavior.

    All law is about legislating morality.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  251. Well, if that is true, why did 3MM less Registered Republicans vote for Romney than voted for McCain; because as we all know, only white, racist, bitter-clingers are registered rethuglikkans?

    If you read the link in #232 you’ll see that there was no shortfall for Romney compared to McCain.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  252. “Mom, since you and Dad are Gary’s God-parents, are Gary and I God-brothers?” “Umm … No, but you should treat him like one.” — stories my Mom tells about me (I don’t remember this happening, but I’ve heard the story for decades.) Dear, close, family friend. I’m very conflicted about Gary Johnson’s campaign (yes, that Gary.) I can think of few who could be his equal, and none better. I feel being president would damage him, and I don’t want that.

    That’s part of the reason that up thread I lost my temper and said some things meant to hurt people. I’m sorry I did that and apologize for having done so.

    htom (412a17)

  253. But there is a difference between me as a restaurateur not allowing certain law-abiding people on the premises when I allow other law-abiding people on the premises, and forcing me to go somewhere that I don’t want to go

    To put a different point on it: I can show you a religious objection to participating in a same-sex ceremony, but I can’t show you a religious objection to serving anyone lunch.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  254. 249-
    I have a very large amount of respect for the work done by Heather MacDonald. If she says there was a shortfall, I believe her.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  255. #252

    What work are you referring to? She probably just accepted the idea in the immediate aftermath of the election that Romney under performed McCain.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  256. And, Gerald A, I highlight this passage from Mr. Podhoretz’ article:

    “…So there are probably no missing voters…” (emphasis added)

    At this point, we have dueling opinions, I suppose.
    At some point in the future it will be sorted out.
    I can only hope that we can get to that point.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  257. Government can compel me to accept that blacks are entitled to equal rights, but I shouldn’t have to serve them at my lunch counter.”

    (I’m not accusing you of anything — I don’t know you. I’m just not seeing any difference between the two arguments).

    Cuz you’re an idiot, Kmart.

    I realize you’re being obtuse. I realize you have t be obtuse to make these kindergarten false equivalncies.

    Here’s the difference, dumbass. If I attempted to sy my religion prevents me from serving a black man at my lunch counter, my religion wouldn’t back my play.

    I know of no religion that says it’s a sin to be a black man.

    Now on the other hand if you demand I cater your gay wedding, or serve as your photographer or florist or what have you, I know of plenty of religions that would back my play if I refused.

    Let me count the ways. Christianity. Judaism. Islam. I can’t speak for Buddhism or Hinduism as I lack the requisite knowledge but I feel safe to say Sikhism is also on my side.

    Sorry, aphrael. According to my religion the lifestyle you have chosen is a sin.

    I’m not the Taliban. I’m not going to seek you out so I can topple a wall upon you. I’m not Hamas so I’m not out looking for the tallest building in Gaza so I can throw you off it.

    Hell, I’m not even saying if I ran a restaurant or a bar or a florist shop I’d refuse your business.

    I’m just saying if you want to throw a celebration sanctifying your relationship as a marriage leave me out of it. I’m sure, and I believe you are sure having done it, that if you want to get married to someone of the same sex that there’s someone down the road willing to act in my stead. The market is that big.

    But the larger point is, despite Kmart’s infantile glee in the comaparison, is that no one had to go toe to toe with the Catholics and demand they get rid of the eleventh or twelth commandment to facilitate integrating the military or accomodate inter-racial marriage.

    There wasn’t such a commandment. This is different. So again the ball’s in your court. What compelling governmental interest is there that’s so significant it should justify this intrusion on poeple’s consciences?

    Steve57 (320590)

  258. Plus, I’m only able to half-listen to Rush as I’m trying to get some work done, and did not hear his cite of Heather’s article.
    But, with all of the media scrutiny that he undergoes, I have learned over the 20+ years I’ve listened to him that he is 99.44% accurate, as he will be crucified for any “un-truth” that might escape his lips. All we have to witness is the kerfuffle that resulted from his Fluke/Slut remark – which in my mind was absolutely accurate – to see what grief he receives for something accurate buy in-artful.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  259. Given that Republicans preferred Mccain to Romney in the primaries, it’s not that surprising that Mccain performed better.

    They are both RINOs, but my problems with Mccain are mixed with great respect for his sacrifices. I did not like that we nominated him either, but I see why he did better.

    Dustin (73fead)

  260. Comment by Steve57 — 11/8/2012 @ 11:46 am

    If you want a more technical reason for the distinction, see public accomodations.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  261. Well we know who was really carrying the freight in that campaign, don’t we, who was prescient about bringing the issue of ‘Miranda rights’ focusing on Obama’s many sundry connections,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  262. They are both RINOs, but my problems with Mccain are mixed with great respect for his sacrifices. I did not like that we nominated him either, but I see why he did better.

    Comment by Dustin — 11/8/2012 @ 11:50 am

    Again he probably didn’t do better. See #232. We don’t know exactly what the final tally will be but it’s a virtual certainty Romney will have quite a bit more votes than currently.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  263. “But if we hope to break out of what is apparently the new status quo (52/48 losses)”

    The status quo since 1994 has been that Republicans win MOST of the national elections. And, the last time that was true was in the 1920s.

    So, if I was them, I wouldn’t be so quick to go changing the status quo.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  264. Tons of things, I can only respond to specific things:
    1) MD – you’re entitled to that belief, and you’re entitled to express that belief in the public sphere.
    But I think that people who believe that that’s a bigoted position to hold are *also* entitled to their beliefs and entitled to express their beliefs in the public sphere. At which point you’re entitled to call them bigots in return.
    (You’ll note that I’ve never called you a bigot for holding that belief, and I’ve argued in more gay-dominated spaces on the internet that it’s possible to hold that religious belief and not hate gay people … but freedom of speech cuts both ways, and it doesn’t carry with it immunity from being called out by people who vehemently disagree with your beliefs).

    Comment by aphrael — 11/8/2012 @ 10:06 am

    Thank you and I agree you have always been civil as I have tried to be (in spite of the reality that my beliefs in and of themselves may be considered uncivil), with a mutual goal I think of at least clear understanding and dispelling myths even if we can’t agree.

    I think your observation is a great one that free speech goes both ways and may help me to make a “problem” clearer. Some people believe I am bigoted, some people agree with my beliefs. Is it possible to be “neutral” in the discussion, and what would that look like? What does law look like that would try to be neutral? If one postulates that many people think “A”, many other people think “B”, and some aren’t sure, and “A” and “B” are opposite, are logically inconsistent. What would it look like for society to neither discriminate against “A” nor “B”?
    I really am asking there things as thoughts out loud, I don’t have proposed answers.

    2) Comment by EdWood — 11/8/2012 @ 10:33 am
    I don’t think there can be any discussion on the merits of one policy over another until all are willing to throw aside the pejorative sound bites as a beginning. Reject the entire notion of condemning conservatives for “trickle down economics” and then I would be willing to begin to have a discussion.

    3) Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 11/8/2012 @ 11:19 am
    I used the example I did as I knew it had some factual basis, thank you for supplying the details.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  265. Some callers on Rush and elsewhere say they are part of the people who stayed home in protest of not having a “conservative enough” candidate- which I guess would go along with the idea that in head to head in 2008 McCain won out. (but then again, it wasn’t McCain vs Romney head to head, it was a bunch of people together and McCain came out ahead in the pack).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  266. Other people pointed out that Romneycare was still a problem for them, and the reality that Romney was not able to use ObamaCare against Obama because of this was a big issue, as a lot of what fueled 2010 was anti-ObamaCare sentiment.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  267. What compelling governmental interest is there that’s so significant it should justify this intrusion on poeple’s consciences?

    Equal rights.

    Listen, we can go around and around on this all you want; it’s going to end up in the same place.

    I’m not accusing of being the Taliban or being evil, so it’s pointless to go there. I’m just saying that even your religious views do not allow you to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws that apply to the general public.

    And to the larger point — the one raised by this post — your views are politically bad for the GOP. Conservative candidates just won’t win saying what you are saying, so they are better off dropping it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  268. Gerald A, you might peruse this….
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/a-disquieting-thought.php

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  269. Are groups attracted to the GOP?

    Ann Althouse thinks so….
    http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2012/11/look-how-many-groups-moved-toward-gop.html

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  270. …Thank you and I agree you have always been civil as I have tried to be…

    Doc, you’ve been civil. You’ve been very civil. Which is to your credit. You’re a doctor.

    Me? It used to be my profession not to be civil. To hurl aircraft or naval gunfire towards someone’s general direction until they stop doing whatever it was that attracted my attention in the first place.

    Now Obama’s won a second term. What has he won? The SEALs made their case. It was rejected in favor of Obama’s. Fine. So who’s going to replace the SEALs? Or does anyone thing people are going to be lining up to be SPECWAR after witnessing the contempt in which they are held?

    Steve57 (320590)

  271. Being civil works with the civilized, which people trying to kill other than in self defense are not.

    Or does anyone thing people are going to be lining up to be SPECWAR after witnessing the contempt in which they are held?
    Comment by Steve57 — 11/8/201

    Actually there were some comments over at Blackfive suggesting they have a frank discussion when people decide not to reenlist.

    As a non-military person but a father of boys, it always did seem to me that the CIC couldn’t help but have an effect on the willingness to join the military or not, to stay in or not.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  272. I am as homophobic as anybody, but pick one or more:

    1. Life is a wonderful thing and love and happiness is where you find it;
    2. It is a good thing for society for two people to enter into a monogamous relationship where they nourish and support each other and perhaps a child or two;
    3. “Labels do not matter” goes both ways — if the words “civil union” are ok, so is the word “marriage”. (My “marriage”, which ended in divorce, was really a civil union, according to our parents. We ran down to City Hall for a few minutes.)
    4. What’s the big deal? I do not follow this issue closely, but from the Massachussetts statistics I see only a few thousand same sex couples, overwhelmingly women. By “big deal” I mean to society generally. It is a big deal to those two people.
    5. Even if it is a sin for them, are we all deputized to enforce the Gospel?

    nk (875f57)

  273. I would just like to point out, as the resident Nor Laup fan, that Bill Kristol was fairly confident republicans didn’t need our votes. Now he says we need young people, which the Paul camp is filled with.

    I’m not saying Ron Paul would have beat Obama. I’m just saying it was stupid to marginalize potential allies and cast them out. The biggest applause at the republican convention came during Rand Paul’s and Clint Eastwood’s speeches about reducing our military presence.

    Meanwhile, Gary Johnson had the strongest libertarian vote in history. Just sayin.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  274. The republicans needed Ralph Nader running on the other side.

    mg (31009b)

  275. Gerald A, you might peruse this….
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/a-disquieting-thought.php

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 11/8/2012 @ 12:29 pm

    Yeah they were basing that on the current vote totals, which are not final. What is so hard to understand?

    Gerald A (138c50)

  276. Actually there were some comments over at Blackfive suggesting they have a frank discussion when people decide not to reenlist.

    Doc in Philly, I’m not of the military. I am of the naval service. The character of the service does differ, although I admit the difference probably wouldn’t matter much to someone outside looking in.

    That said, I could not in good conscience ask someone to crawl out on a limb that I figure the odds say will be sawed off.

    Could you?

    Steve57 (320590)

  277. JD 70%
    No, that would be nuts.

    You can’t start taxing capital gains as income again either. Equally nuts.

    Pretending that letting Bush’s tax breaks expire is going to suddenly stop people from trying to make money by investing is nuts too. How do I know? I’ve asked people who invest their money for a living.

    Pretending that letting the tax breaks expire is going to balance the budget? Nuts

    Pretending that taking away subsidized school lunches from kids and all those other discretionary freebies is going to balance the budget? Super nuts.

    We are about to enter the greying of America phase of our demographics too where all the baby boomers are starting to retire and want their social security. Gonna have to pay for that. If homosexuals are allowed to at least have civil unions then add 10% (supposed % of homosexuals in the population) to all sorts of government pensions etc. because those spouses can claim benefits.

    Everyone wants their social security, most of them don’t want to have to gamble the money in the stock market, especially since 2008, nobody wants to have to pay more in taxes and now I’ve wandered into the next thread….

    EdWood (c2268a)

  278. So, what is their fair share?

    JD (ac62a1)

  279. It was hilarious today, a client of mine who I know voted Obama was discussing a proposed contract to buy a duplex rental property she inherited a couple of years ago. The proposed contract has a closing date of the second week of January, and I pointed out to her that the later date would result in additional capital gains tax based on current law in the amount of … let’s say it was $1000 … versus closing in December.

    The shriek in the phone when I told her that was hilarious. Especially when I told her that that was the consequence of Democrats only extending tax rates by two years back in December of ’10 …

    Ah, the tears of an Obama voter taste sweet.

    SPQR (768505)

  280. “I don’t think there can be any discussion on the merits of one policy over another until all are willing to throw aside the pejorative sound bites as a beginning.”

    Ahh if only …..

    And drop the “they are out to get me” world view. (Maybe politicians will have some real trouble with this one since “they” really are out to get them).
    Even when people try to calm down there are always plenty of hustlers, bullies, and assorted griefers to ramp them up/scare them again, you know, for ratings,$, the lulz.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  281. There are many churches and caterers and temporary lodging places … and photographers who may chose their clients as they will. Your favorite turns you down — for whatever reason or lack there of — chose another. Suing seems to me to be the path to scheduling woes, burn cake, raw potatoes, wet sheets, … lost film/ memory chips; why go there?

    There is, however, only one government that issues marriage licenses. (Whether or not it should is a different argument; it does, and it does not allow competition.) You can go only there, there are no alternatives to chose.

    That’s the difference.

    It used to be one of the differences between (in some states) a civil union and a marriage is standing. I know of no state where civil union is defined as being another term for marriage; they are always separate and different unions. There is always some attempt to make them appear to be “like”, but there always seems to be these minor “gotchas”. Separate and not equal.

    In my memory, there have been churches who preached in the early 1970s that “Negroes bear the mark of Cain!”[sic] :walked out in the middle of the sermon:

    htom (412a17)

  282. My point is that the Republican party can’t continue to demonize gays, women, etc.

    – Yep, THAT’S the Republican Party; ‘demonizing’ women. Gee, I wonder if you can say anything dumber than that . . .

    I would suggest that they are based on ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they happen to coincide with your concepts of “morality”, fine… but they are not BASED on morality.
    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 11:21 am

    – Aww, look at you! You rose to the occasion, and then some!!!

    Icy (716a69)

  283. That said, I could not in good conscience ask someone to crawl out on a limb that I figure the odds say will be sawed off.
    Could you?

    Comment by Steve57 — 11/8/2012 @ 1:10 pm

    No, that’s what I was trying to say, and that’s what the folks at Blackfive were trying to say.
    I’m sure the various branches have their distinctives, but if people are shooting at you and trying to kill you, and you are shooting back at them, that’s a major thing in common.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  284. Comment by SPQR — 11/8/2012 @ 1:32 pm

    Wonderful. maybe you should keep a list of such instances so you can send motes in the summer of 2014.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  285. MD in Philly, probably April 15th 2014 would be a better dates for the note …

    SPQR (768505)

  286. To Dustin 126,

    The tale that Bush got “twice the hispanic vote that Romney got” is a lie, put forward for obvious reasons. Supposedly Bush had 44% of this vote in 2004. Steve Sailer and others refuted this at the time. By the way when you get 44%, it means you lost a 56-44 landslide.

    After securing the GOP nomination, Romney told Republican congressmen not to mention Obama’s executive order Dream act. Romney also had TV adds on Spanish language TV promising an amnesty.

    What good did THAT do him?

    DN (ad6cba)

  287. ==Does anyone have a good answer to Heather MacDonald’s numbers that 3MM less Republicans supported Romney than supported McCain, and Romney lost by 2.7MM votes? ?==

    Well, I think simple demographics played a role in this. Older gents and ladies, Korea and Vietnam vets, and especially WWII veterans who came out strongly for ex-POW McCain and for national security issues have been dying off in large numbers in the 4 years between 2008 and 2012. So it was impossible for them to vote for Romney. Younger voters have been trending Dem for a while now primarily over social issues. Demographics are not a friend to team R., and I do not believe this reality is well understood and appreciated by many many people. Major demographic changes related to the rapid aging of the American population are just one of the many reasons Republicans should address immigration and population replacement in a practical and reasoned and proactive way–the sooner the better.

    elissa (8d6070)

  288. “As a non-military person but a father of boys, it always did seem to me that the CIC couldn’t help but have an effect on the willingness to join the military or not, to stay in or not.”

    - MD in Philly

    It certainly affected my decision, albeit at a more abstract level – there was this one CIC who kinda imbued me with skepticism as to the prudential use of American military force. His successor did little to disabuse me of that skepticism.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  289. elissa, there is one complication to that youth demographic:
    It is well demonstrated that the Single-Woman vote is overwhelmingly Dem; but when they marry (if they marry) and have a child, it switches to the other side and they become Republicans.
    Our problem with demographics is not that old-people are dying (when were they not), it is that young-people are delaying marriage to an age that has never been seen before, and what’s worse, having too few kids on top of it.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  290. Yeah, I did not like Wagging the Dog in Bosnia and Kosovo, either, Leviticus. And the mission failed, anyway. The Lewinski did not go away.

    nk (875f57)

  291. Comment by nk — 11/8/2012 @ 3:58 pm

    I thought he was talking about Woodrow Wilson.

    nk- about the earlier discussion about SS marriage-
    My main point, which is not new, is not that I am against same-sex couples being able to have some legally recognized relationship akin to marriage, or that I want the government to interfere with their behavior.

    I simply want to know if people who are in favor of SS marriage because “What is their marriage going to do to you” will be willing to come to the defense of someone ostracized and/or charged with hate speech for saying they do not think a same-sex marriage is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage.
    If someone, for example aphrael, wants to say that same-sex marriage is the same, I will disagree, but I do not wish any harm to him because of his view.

    On the other hand, if people don’t want to come to the aid of such a person, that is actually quite fine with me, just drop the disingenuous argument that nobody else will be affected.

    Once upon a time people said there was no reason to try to get a Constitutional Amendment about marriage because we already had DOMA. Hillary and company said such stuff. Anybody less than 95% gullible knew such a position meant nothing in the long run (although we thought Fed courts would obliterate it, not a POTUS and his AG).

    The issue is ever present that one person’s rights stop where another person’s begins, but when two people lay claim to the same thing, i.e. marriage is “X”, I think the ramifications are too easily dismissed.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  292. 4P7IdZ Appreciate you sharing, great article post.Thanks Again. Really Great.

    cheap bookmarking service (9ace40)

  293. KuNe9l Very good blog post.Thanks Again. Great.

    cheap seo services (9ace40)

  294. Thanks, Patterico, for giving my comment such a wide audience! I’ve enjoyed checking in throughout the day and reading the responses. There’s a part of me that wants to be like George Costanza and leave on a high note (“That’s all from me, people! Good night!”). But, that’s not my nature, so one follow-up.

    As I’ve read and absorbed some of the comments, I’ve broadly observed that my proposal holds up well at the macro level, but gets tougher once you start talking about specific issues (like abortion).

    What’s key to remember is: This isn’t an argument that we abandon the fight on social values issues. What I’m arguing is that we elevate the debate to a larger discussion about the proper role of the Federal Government in our lives. When your opponent attempts to turn the debate into a specific discussion about ‘conservative attempts to legislate a woman’s body’, you elevate it by responding we want to stop the Federal Government from all forms of social legislation, and give examples that are traditionally socially liberal. Use examples of states passing laws that recognize gay marriage as exactly the proper role of states. And, point out that there are also states where they don’t recognize gay marriage, and that’s a sign of a healthy Republic.

    One might argue it’s a Clintonian triangulation of sorts. Co-opt their issues, and with them their voters. But, it’s not triangulation, its elevation of the argument. Expand the base of the Republican party to include fiscally conservative socially not-so-conservative voters. There are a lot of them, and they would abandon the tax-and-spend Democrat party in a heartbeat if they didn’t feel doing so was to turn their back on ‘a woman’s right to choose’, or whatever socially conservative cause the Democrats use to scare voters.

    Thanks again, Patterico. It’s been an honor to have the opportunity to see this debate played out.

    I’ll be back!

    dbnr (d3ebd9)

  295. Steve57- from Blackfive:
    I am so friggen done with my countrymen. I was gonna re-up now its not gonna happen. I can’t honestly think of a reason to miss one of my kids birthdays or spend time away from my wife for the sheeple anymore. My hearts just not in it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  296. This idea that there was something especially important at stake in this election continues to puzzle me. Obama is a lot of things; an outlier is not one of them.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  297. If we’re f*cked, it’s not the fault of one man or even one group. It’s the fault of our entire system of government or one of the premises underlying it.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  298. Equal rights.

    There is already the equal right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  299. Right. Just like there was an equal right to go to the public school of your local government’s choosing.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  300. _____________________________________________

    I wonder if this election was lost way back when Romney staked an immigration position in the primary that was difficult to maneuver away from.

    Dustin, you’re being naive about that issue.

    I saw an essay from a writer linked at I believe hotair.com, who noted that when the Republican Congress in the 1980s passed the permissive Simpson-Mizzoli immigration “reform” bill, which was signed by Reagan, that 2 years later conservatives/Republicans were slammed in Congressional elections.

    It makes about as much sense to theorize that non-leftist (I won’t even say conservative) candidates running for the presidency in, for example, Mexico often have a tough time getting elected in that country because of the controversy of illegal immigration.

    Liberalism is a universal trait and shortcoming, no matter the circumstances.

    Mark (66bba6)

  301. Or an equal right to ride in the railcar of your local government’s choosing.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  302. ____________________________________

    Obama is a lot of things; an outlier is not one of them.

    You mean that many Americans with left-leaning sentiments innately and naturally gravitate to the ethos of “goddamn America?” If so, then, yep, Obama isn’t an outlier.

    Mark (66bba6)

  303. You’re right, Mark. I forgot Obama said that.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  304. I simply want to know if people who are in favor of SS marriage because “What is their marriage going to do to you” will be willing to come to the defense of someone ostracized and/or charged with hate speech for saying they do not think a same-sex marriage is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage.

    I will, for one. Same-sex marriage is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage. That’s not my argument. But there’s room on the societal highway for Harley 1100s and Honda 150s. They’re both motorcycles.

    (I was going to use the the apples and oranges scene from my Big Fat Greek Wedding but I thought better of it. ;) )

    Oh what the heck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrXGnwhZ58c

    BTW, “miller” is a Greek work, but it does not come from the Greek word for apple, it comes from the Greek word for mill, the exact same thing in English, the thing you grind things with.

    nk (875f57)

  305. ______________________________________

    I forgot Obama said that.

    He certainly *feels* that. But that’s okay. His heart is in the right place. His generosity and compassion, and tolerance, and humaneness, and great integrity, are beyond dispute.

    Mark (66bba6)

  306. Mark, it’s certainly possible I’m being naive about politics.

    I can’t really understand Obama getting more than ten percent of the vote, if I’m really honest about it. So yeah, I’m missing a lot.

    But I don’t understand how my analysis of Romney’s immigration position is wrong. Romney got half the hispanic support Bush got. I think he should have done better, because he probably wouldn’t lead all that differently from Bush on immigration.

    I think Romney made a move in the primary that made it more difficult to gain hispanic support than it has been for other Republican candidates.

    I find this fascinating, so if you’d elaborate I would appreciate it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  307. _______________________________________________

    Same-sex marriage is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

    It’s unfair that the laws don’t recognize bisexuals. I think people should have a right to be married to both a husband and wife, a wife and a husband. Well, that actually enters the realm of polygamy. So multi-partner marriages should make even more sense to the GLBT crowd.

    Mark (66bba6)

  308. The tale that Bush got “twice the hispanic vote that Romney got” is a lie, put forward for obvious reasons. Supposedly Bush had 44% of this vote in 2004. Steve Sailer and others refuted this at the time. By the way when you get 44%, it means you lost a 56-44 landslide.

    Comment by DN — 11/8/2012

    I didn’t realize the 41% statistic I had heard was in error.

    I agree that 41% is not as good as 41%, but it’s also a lot better than, say, half that.

    After securing the GOP nomination, Romney told Republican congressmen not to mention Obama’s executive order Dream act. Romney also had TV adds on Spanish language TV promising an amnesty.

    What good did THAT do him?

    It did him no good, of course. That’s my point!

    Dustin (73fead)

  309. I agree that 41% is not as good as 51%

    oops

    Dustin (73fead)

  310. Again he probably didn’t do better. See #232. We don’t know exactly what the final tally will be but it’s a virtual certainty Romney will have quite a bit more votes than currently.

    Comment by Gerald A — 11/8/2012 @ 11:59 am

    Fair enough. Let’s wait and see when the dust settles if Romney really did as poorly as it’s been reported. Obviously some on the left would delight in the GOP eating itself alive with recrimination.

    Romney put on a powerful performance, in my opinion. A better one than any of his competitors could have, simply because Romney wanted to win much more. He also wanted to win much more than Mccain did.

    I am surprised he didn’t do much better than Mccain. I’m just trying to understand what happened.

    I admit, I mostly want a more conservative nominee simply because those are my politics, but I think there is something particularly difficult about a moderate republican (particularly one who can be seen as a flip flopper). It just doesn’t sell, in practice.

    Unfortunately, I am not confident that the other candidates had the drive Romney did. We need both principles and dedication. Running for president is hard work, and only Newt and Romney really acted like they were willing to put in the work.

    I disagree with you, Gerald, in thinking Newt might have done better, but that’s just my gut talking.

    Dustin (73fead)

  311. I would suggest that they are based on ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they happen to coincide with your concepts of “morality”, fine… but they are not BASED on morality.
    Comment by Kman — 11/8/2012 @ 11:21 am

    Are you so stupid and historically ignorant that you are unaware from whence these ideas originated? Hint it is a bound edition that consists of 66 books. In fact the author gives you a real big hint, “Nature’s GOD” and “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”

    Teh stoopid is strong in this one!

    pissedofftokedoutmemberofthenewestBananaRepublic (ee1de0)

  312. These sex-race-ethnicity voter statistics come from exit polls, right?

    nk (875f57)

  313. _____________________________________________

    I find this fascinating, so if you’d elaborate I would appreciate it.

    Dustin, I bet if Romney had come out and, as Ron Paul did, declared his support for open borders, a lot of Latino voters still would have griped about the Republican candidate being too rich, too greedy, too heartless, too uninterested in the common man.

    However, if Romney had been a Latino of middle-class origins and demeanor, but still expressed a non-touchy-feely approach to illegal immigration, he might have picked up a few — but just a few — more votes from Latino voters. But, again, only a few more.

    Mark (66bba6)

  314. Thanks for explaining, Mark.

    I guess I just estimate things differently, but there’s no reason to think you’re wrong and I’m right about that.

    I don’t want an open borders policy, but I do want a tall walls and wide gate policy.

    If it’s the case that Bush got twice the hispanic vote (which is in dispute and I haven’t been able to find out), then I want to know what changed.

    Dustin (73fead)

  315. McCain got 59.9 million votes Obama got 69.4 million as of right now Romney got 57.7 million and Obama has 60.5 million. That is a drop of 2.2 million votes for Romney from McCain. Here is the kicker though. Of that 2.2 million 1.4 million is from California. The only swing state Romney didn’t outperform McCain in was Ohio. Obama on the other hand lost over 1 million voters in Swing states and the only state he did as well in as he did in 2008 was North Carolina.

    An update here. The only state that has a significant proportion of uncounted precincts is Washington, and there are less than a million uncounted votes as of 8 A.M. PST.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  316. “I think the Republican party should emphasize economic freedom and small government, which are core concepts that have wide appeal.”

    Sounds all fine and good but then people get all excited over Arizona’s government being heavy handed with latinos and the people that employ them and it all goes down the drain.

    joel (64270f)

  317. I just love how these liberal talking heads on TV and the net are giving the GOP advice. Saying that the GOP needs to moderate its views about abortion, same sex marriage, taxes, spending, etc., etc., etc…. ad infinitum. Saw Bob
    Beckel and that blond Kirsten? Kristen? demoncrapper just last night giving advice on how we need to become more like them.

    Does anyone really believe that they have their opposing party’s best interest at heart? Hasn’t anyone seen the studies that indicate the teens now in high schools are becoming more conservative and more supportive of restrictions on birth control, spending, taxes, etc.? It’s mainly because the dems have aborted their base and the teens now, are coming from conservative households that didn’t abort their offspring.

    pissedofftokedoutmemberofthenewestBananaRepublic (ee1de0)

  318. The only swing state Romney didn’t outperform McCain in was Ohio.

    Well, that kinda changes things. I’m sure Romney would have traded two California votes for one swing state vote. Perhaps this is the result of his campaign being more focused?

    Also, if he won a higher percentage and a lower total number, he didn’t really underperform Mccain. Each state election is decided by percentage, after all.

    It actually is frustrating. Obama lost a ton of support, and had we been able to get just a little more enthusiasm than Mccain managed, we probably could have won.

    I have to wonder what we could have done.

    Dustin (73fead)

  319. Kirsten Powers

    pissedofftokedoutmemberofthenewestBananaRepublic (ee1de0)

  320. Oops forgot to change my handle back from pissedofftokedoutmemberofthenewestBananaRepublic

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  321. pissedofftokedoutmemberofthenewestBananaRepublic,

    Your new name is kind of long and perhaps should be abbreviated to potomonbr. I’m worried that it might screw up people’s margins if you don’t.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  322. Oh, you’re going back to your old handle. Never mind then.

    Patterico (8b3905)

  323. “I just love how these liberal talking heads on TV and the net are giving the GOP advice. ”

    The other piece of advice would be to stop with the bubble and to check yourself if you find yourself dismissing things because they’re on the ‘liberal media.’ In other words, unskew yourself.

    joel (64270f)

  324. McCain got 59.9 million votes Obama got 69.4 million as of right now Romney got 57.7 million and Obama has 60.5 million. That is a drop of 2.2 million votes for Romney from McCain. Here is the kicker though. Of that 2.2 million 1.4 million is from California. The only swing state Romney didn’t outperform McCain in was Ohio. Obama on the other hand lost over 1 million voters in Swing states and the only state he did as well in as he did in 2008 was North Carolina.

    An update here. The only state that has a significant proportion of uncounted precincts is Washington, and there are less than a million uncounted votes as of 8 A.M. PST this morning. This means Obama has at least seven million fewer votes than he did in 2008 (a drop of 10%), while
    Romney got about a million fewer votes than McCain (a drop of about 1.6%).

    What is unknown is the proportion of that seven million whom Obama lost voted for Romney. I would doubt that all of them did; many of them were Democrats who could not bring themselves to vote for a Republican.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  325. Also, just because the left has a much larger group of loons (which you did a great job of listing) does not mean the right doesn’t have its share of loons too –and they cost us real votes and lost us important seats yesterday.

    So why did not the loons on the left cost them votes?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  326. The National GOP must immediately begin to work on strategies and messages that attract young voters, women, and individuals within minority groups. To have any real influence on policy outcomes you have to be at the table. To be at the table you have to win elections. If you don’t do all you can to win elections then it’s really just a doomed party filled with frustrated people who like to pontificate and to hear themselves talk about the good old days.

    elissa (8d6070)

  327. The National GOP must immediately begin to work on strategies and messages that attract young voters, women, and individuals within minority groups.

    Like how?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  328. “So why did not the loons on the left cost them votes?”

    Just because you use the term loon doesn’t mean they are.

    joel (64270f)

  329. Sorry Pat, that was from my rant that I was going to move to Colorado and become a freeloading dope smoker on the election thread in response to what a lot of Obummers voters had said in interviews after his re-selection. Just forgot to change it back on this computer. Ducks head and apologizes profusely for the confusion.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  330. If you don’t do all you can to win elections then it’s really just a doomed party filled with frustrated people who like to pontificate and to hear themselves talk about the good old days.

    Yep. If that’s not a political party’s goal, then it’s not really a political party. It’s just a mass demonstration.

    The GOP has tons of talented young and awesome rising stars. We’ve got to cut down on the errors (the Akins) and attract more enthusiasm with minority groups. I don’t like identity politics, but I don’t think that’s necessary.

    We need to communicate the seriousness of the deficit. That impacts everybody.

    Dustin (73fead)

  331. Joel must be one of the loons.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  332. Yeah Joel, I really believe it when some liberal talking heads in the democrat party give advice on how their enemies the GOP can be more successful at winning.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  333. That’s sort of like getting advice from a serial killer on how to become more peaceful, or from a dictator on how to run more honest and open elections.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  334. You like to throw questions back don’t you, Michael E? Do you think expanding the base and the R voting population is not a worthy goal for the GOP if it wants to win elections? Do you think that should not be a priority? Can you perhaps think of some idea or a strategy that could help with that?

    elissa (8d6070)

  335. “That’s sort of like getting advice from a serial killer on how to become more peaceful, or from a dictator on how to run more honest and open elections.”

    Or from the winners on how to win.

    joel (64270f)

  336. You like to throw questions back don’t you, Michael E? Do you think expanding the base and the R voting population is not a worthy goal for the GOP if it wants to win elections?

    I asked how to do that.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  337. “I asked how to do that.”

    What kind of small government do latinos want? One that doesn’t treat them as suspect undocumented immigrants. What kind of small government do minority communities want? One that doesn’t lock them up in the drug war.

    joel (64270f)

  338. The Rebublicans need more pot/prostitute legalizers the way Custer needed more Indians.

    Romney was not a charismatic figure, he failed to energize the party. Axelrod is a shrewd campaigner, he kept the turnout even lower with negative campaigning. (Romney had it coming, he went negative on Gingrich in the primary when Gingrich was trying to take the high road.)

    Basically, more people liked Obama than they did Romney.

    nk (875f57)

  339. What kind of small government do minority communities want? One that doesn’t lock them up in the drug war.

    A drug war supported by Democrats.

    What kind of small government do latinos want? One that doesn’t treat them as suspect undocumented immigrants.

    Must be why Susana Martinez lost her gubernatorial race. Must be why Brian Sandoval lost his gubernatorial race.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  340. Another informed perspective:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/08/when-conservatism-is-a-secon/

    Reagan effectively communicated the conservative mindset and path to liberty for decades before finally winning election as POTUS.

    Millions of Reagan Democrats turned out to re-elect him. This time out, 2M white folk normally voting Republican stayed home because they didn’t see anything in it for them.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  341. Leviticus- I agree with you that the re-election of Obama is a reflection of where the public is at, as Mark often points out. If they are willing to elect Obama, they would be willing to elect someone else like Obama.

    I would like to see a good study of what “Hispanics” think about immigration. Not what La Raza rallies say, but what all of the Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, immigrants from Central America, those who came legally and legally can vote, those who did not come here legally (and vote anyway :-( ), etc.

    But as long as you have more than 50% of the people thinking the current economic situation is the fault of Bush and that the Republicans would outlaw abortion if elected, what difference does it make if you change policy? If you can’t alert the public to the corruption of Fast and Furious and Benghazi what difference does much of anything make?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  342. “A drug war supported by Democrats. ”

    So that tells you what about this being a good or a bad issue for the GOP? You have to be able to help yourself here.

    “Must be why Susana Martinez lost her gubernatorial race. Must be why Brian Sandoval lost his gubernatorial race.”

    Dude don’t make me look up the exit polls.

    joel (64270f)

  343. “Joel” is also spointer/rafalfa/Chol/aggs/lemonwetgood and various others. Serial d-bags are so easy to smell.

    JD (318f81)

  344. Johnny Carson: Ed, did you know that the media is in the tank for Obama?
    Ed McMahon: So I’ve heard. just how much in the tank are they?
    Johnny: They are so in the tank, that if Obama said the moon was made of blue cheese, they would ask how many pounds of it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  345. When you really look at the exit polls, you see that all this “wisdom” about what the GOP needs to do is not supported by reality.

    SPQR (768505)

  346. Dude don’t make me look up the exit polls.

    Those races (Martinez and Sandoval) were in “purple” states.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  347. When you really look at the exit polls, you see that all this “wisdom” about what the GOP needs to do is not supported by reality

    How so?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  348. Johnny Carson: Ed, did you know that the media is in the tank for Obama?
    Ed McMahon: So I’ve heard. just how much in the tank are they?
    Johnny: They are so in the tank, that if Obama said the moon was made of blue cheese, they would all be shocked and say that we never did land on the moon after all.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  349. In fairness to Dhimmis they are not all batsh*t cwayzie, indeed, they vote their bottom line. In a economy descending by fits into depression, with Obamaneycare rendering all new jobs part-time, with disability rolls and food stamp recipients soaring, yada, yada, are you going to vote for reduced entitlements?

    The troll slanders Latinos as a group in being too ignorant to be swayed by any emotion other than fear. Cruz won and he’s as conservative as anyone in DC.

    No one bothers to school a constituency, save dingbats like Bachmann or wetbacks like Rubio.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  350. “Those races (Martinez and Sandoval) were in “purple” states.”

    And how did those states do this week?

    joel (64270f)

  351. It is a vicious circle, though, gary, but you have a point,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  352. More on same-sex “marriage”.

    The reason I oppose redefining marriage is because I have not been
    presented with a good-enough reason to do so.

    Could it be that the prevailing legal definition is at odds with the
    social understanding? While that could be the case in certain times
    and places, it was not the case in North Carolina. The people of North
    Carolina understand marriage to be an opposite-sex union. In over
    thirty states the people voted to define marriage, and that vote is a
    clear indicator of the social understanding of marriage.

    Is there any difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?
    The answer is yes. There are basic biological differences between men
    and women. It is because of these differences that we have different
    words for men and women. In addition, several dating blogs highlighted
    the different dynamics in human pair bonding between men and women.
    And of course, unintentional pregnancies can happen with opposite-sex
    couples without outside intervention, while it can never happen with
    same-sex couples, pairs of brothers, or trios of sisters. Therefore,
    the dynamics of same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are different.
    This is sufficient reason to use different names for same-sex unions
    and opposite-sex unions.

    To be sure, there are some similarities. Canals and highways have
    similarities too, in that they are both used for transportation across
    land, and yet they are different. Using different names to describe
    different things- whether marriages and same-sex unions, canals and
    highways- is not immoral and not oppression.

    Can gay couples raise children? To the same extent that pairs of
    brothers and trios of sisters can raise children. Society has
    recognized alternate arrangements of raising children. Indeed,
    monasteries in medieval Europe would often raise orphans. No doubt
    what the monks and nuns did were admirable. Most people at the time
    were certain the monks and nuns in those monasteries would give all
    for each other, and for the orphans they raised. And yet, while
    society admired what they did, they were not considered the same as
    married couples, nor afforded the same social recognition. Pairs of
    brothers and trios of sisters were not considered married, even if
    they raised children. Why should same-sex couples be considered
    married merely because they raise children?

    Is it immoral to define marriage as between one man and one woman?
    If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong always. And yet,
    our secular moral traditions lends no support to the idea that it is
    immoral to define marriage as between one man and one woman. No
    writing or publication dating from the Reformation, Enlightenment,
    American Revolution, or American Civil War even hints so.

    Does the definition of marriage oppress homosexuals? Is it the only
    possible reason for such a definition? The very first dictionary I
    read, the 1981 World Book Dictionary, defines marriage as “the act or
    fact of living together as husband and wife; relations between husband
    and wife; married life; wedlock. Perhaps this line of argument would
    have some force if the word marriage was invented in 1981 by
    heterosexuals to oppress homosexuals. But this definition clearly
    predates 1981. John Locke, one of the Enlightenment philosophers,
    wrote that marriage was “made by a voluntary compact between man and
    woman.” Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690) One
    hundred seventy-eight years alter, a leading law dictionary was
    published affirming this definition. John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary
    Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
    105 (1868) Indeed, the concept of sexual orientation itself did not
    exist until the late 19th century. See J. Katz, The Invention of
    Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J.
    D’Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in
    America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“The modern terms homosexuality and
    heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated
    these distinctions“), cited in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at
    568-569 (2003) Clearly, the purpose of marriage was not to oppress
    homosexuals, any more than its purpose was to oppress airline pilots.
    And, of course, the nomenclature used to describe same-sex unions is
    distinct from the issue of how to treat people in same-sex unions.
    After all, women were not oppressed merely by being called women
    instead of men, but by denying them property rights, the right to
    vote, etc.

    NefeshBarYocahi replied

    That was an interesting an educational read. It is just good common
    sense that society should not allow children to be raised by homosexuals. Those that look forward to the fall of the USA have been
    indoctrinating us since the inception of this country that someday we will go the way of the Greeks and the Romans. It’s like Merle Haggard
    said, “They love our Milk and Honey but they preach about some other
    way of living.” Homosexuality is not part of the American Way of
    Life. Nor is it part of the Jewish Way of Life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  353. In fairness to Dhimmis they are not all batsh*t cwayzie, indeed, they vote their bottom line. In a economy descending by fits into depression, with Obamaneycare rendering all new jobs part-time, with disability rolls and food stamp recipients soaring, yada, yada, are you going to vote for reduced entitlements?

    Plus, to many of them, they think that getting entitlements would not make things much worse.

    The bank bailout could cost twenty trillion. what difference does unemployment and food stamps make compared to that?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  354. “The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly also will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous clown who (a) hogged up a prime time spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney’s presidential campaign. Good luck with the remainder of your political future, governor. It is unlikely Republicans shall soon forget your perfidious betrayal.”

    - Robert Stacy McCain

    Colonel Haiku (24650e)

  355. “The reason I oppose redefining marriage is because I have not been
    presented with a good-enough reason to do so.”

    How about not needing a reason and just letting gay folks get married?

    joel (64270f)

  356. 349. “And how did those states do this week?”

    About the same as border states MN and WI, each flipping state Senate and House to the taxers&spenders having been put on more solid fiscal footing?

    Why on earth would they do that? Because they’ve seen levy request one after another without state handouts to local schools. Because the roads are a mess, because there defined benefit pensions and healthcare plans are under attack all the while administrations are creating new positions.

    Make someone else pay, like the retired folk, the rich, the Dinks, whatever.

    It certainly wasn’t ’cause of reduced services they expect restored. That’s been happening for years, regardless of the party in power.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  357. How about not needing a reason and just letting gay folks get married?

    Of course I need a reason. I grew up believing that marriage is between a man and a woman. The first dictionary I ever read described marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  358. Why of course? Why not just let someone else have their happiness? Yeah I read a dictionary once but now I have gay friends and really I don’t need any reason to see them married besides the fact that I’m so happy for them.

    joel (64270f)

  359. 354. Why does the state recognize anything beyond a civil union, why does it subsidize marriage and child rearing, why does it restrict transfer of estates.

    Simple, because its another pot and another greased skid.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  360. 357 “Why not just let someone else have their happiness?”

    Married fool? I dint think so.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  361. Go look at some wedding pictures or something.

    joel (64270f)

  362. ______________________________________________

    How about not needing a reason and just letting gay folks get married?

    Just as long you’re accepting of polygamy — which actually has been a more mainstream (or less deviant) part of human history and, tellingly enough, was (or is) even considered traditional and conservative in some societies — then you can’t be faulted for promoting false tolerance or a schizoid (or two-faced) notion of “live and let live,” or “whatever makes you happy!”

    Mark (66bba6)

  363. I agree with Elephant Stone #61. Romney is essentially the second coming of George H.W. Bush — a good and decent man who had no vision about where the country should go or where he would lead it. Americans are very good at spotting vision and lack of vision in its leaders.

    I believe vision is a more important issue to the GOP than the Democratic Party. Why? Because the GOP is built on ideas and our vision for government and the country, not on the charisma or empathy of our leaders. I also believe Americans will still respond to a strong vision — even more than they respond to someone who feels their pain — but the absence of one always yields to the other.

    Reagan was the rare charismatic GOP leader that Americans liked both for his vision and because they could identify with him. But Republicans don’t have to have that in every election. They can succeed with a likeable candidate who can articulate a strong vision for America.

    Finally, I strongly believe that the days of winning with a good and decent but vision-less leader are gone. For both Parties.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  364. I would like to see a good study of what “Hispanics” think about immigration. Not what La Raza rallies say, but what all of the Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, immigrants from Central America, those who came legally and legally can vote, those who did not come here legally (and vote anyway :-( ), etc.

    People forget that Prop 187, which was to enact the theory that immigration should be open as long as the welfare state does not apply, won with 63 % of the vote and about 30% in Hispanic precincts. Legal immigrants are not necessarily pro-illegal immigration.

    That initiative was overturned by the CA Supreme Court and is alleged to have destroyed the Republican Party in California. The myth has been bad for the party but the public employee unions have destroyed everything in the state, including the schools.

    After bankruptcy, we’ll see.

    Mike K (326cba)

  365. A friend of mine once said that wives are great, he wished he had 12 of them. This he explained as he was running from his wife.

    It was all in jest, though.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  366. Joel – how many names do you plan on using?

    JD (318f81)

  367. “Just as long you’re accepting of polygamy”

    No need for conditions. No “just this” or “only if you that.” Just let your gay friends get married.

    joel (64270f)

  368. “People forget that Prop 187, which was to enact the theory that immigration should be open as long as the welfare state does not apply, won with 63 % of the vote and about 30% in Hispanic precincts”

    And how has the latino vote been in CA since then?

    joel (64270f)

  369. So some marriages are not okay to “Joel”.

    JD (318f81)

  370. “Just as long you’re accepting of polygamy”
    No need for conditions. No “just this” or “only if you that.” Just let your gay friends get married.

    Comment by joel — 11/8/2012 @ 7:40 pm

    No reasoning needed, just do it because I said so…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  371. Joel – how many names do you plan on using?

    Your comments must follow our copyright policy. Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning. Profane language will place your comment in moderation. If you are following the rules and your comment does not appear, do not assume I banned you; instead, e-mail me.

    JD (318f81)

  372. Not ok if you want to use them to stop gay marriage.

    joel (64270f)

  373. Libertarians come out of the woodwork once again to claim that if only we were all like them, we would have cleaned up.

    Hogwash. Opposition to gay marriage is still popular, and the people generally are less pro-choice than the democrat absolutist stance. Parental notification and full disclosure laws have good support, while government funding of abortion does not. Taking a more nuanced stance could help. Keep the tone focused on protecting women and the rights people who oppose abortion.

    AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, EVERY CANDIDATE MUST HAVE A STANDARD ANSWER ON ABORTION! Mourdock was running a good campaign until he shot himself in the foot.

    Also, immigration needs a lot more thought. Discussion of the topic needs to focus on issues of security (we have no way to stop MS-13 etc from coming here to kill innocent people) and fairness (Why should immigrants from one country have it easy? Why do we not favor people with proven job skills?) Take Patterico’s deport the criminals first. Just who is in favor of keeping gangsters and violent criminals around?

    We can help the demographic issue with a focus on small businesses and the urban economy. If you live in a major city, you rapidly learn that the economy is just as big of an issue as out in suburban areas. If the GOP could sell a message of going easy on small businesses and bringing in more jobs, they could chip away at the democrat stranglehold. From my experience in Chicago’s Latino neighborhoods like Pilsen and Little Village, there are small businesses all over the place. The guy who runs a clothing store or a barber shop is more concerned about keeping business coming in and avoiding more overhead than racial politics.

    OmegaPaladin (f2d931)

  374. “No reasoning needed, just do it because I said so…”

    Yeah, see how easy it is? Just take your beliefs and vote them! It’s your right as an American!

    joel (64270f)

  375. I saw a very attractive young woman about 20 yoa on Foxnews right after the announcement that Obeyme had won re-election, at least until she opened her mouth to speak. She was a college student, wearing what appeared to expensive designer clothes, and was just ecstatic that O had won. When she was asked why, she stated it was because Ocrummycare would not be taken away, and that she, her mother, and father would now have free healthcare. Little does she know that Ocrummycare does not provide you with free healthcare, but requires you to buy a Cadillac plan that covers everything from A to Z. The estimated increase in cost is estimated to be 3-4 times more expensive than it is now, and if you don’t purchase it or have it provided by your employer, then the IRS is gonna tax the crap out of you for not having insurance. Oh and by the way, that tax that they are gonna levy on your azzes, doesn’t provide you with insurance either, it goes straight to the gubbymint to redistribute as Uncle Sugar Daddy.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  376. I asked you a direct question, “Joel”. Last chance.

    JD (318f81)

  377. “People forget that Prop 187, which was to enact the theory that immigration should be open as long as the welfare state does not apply, won with 63 % of the vote and about 30% in Hispanic precincts”

    And how has the latino vote been in CA since then?

    How did 187 win 63% of the vote?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  378. ____________________________________________

    Just let your gay friends get married.

    And let your male friends get hitched to as many females at they so desire. After all, monogamy is no less of a genetically innate facet of the male populace than, according to the GLBT crowd, is homosexuality.

    And how has the latino vote been in CA since then?

    About as leftwing as it has ever been — and ever will be — in Latino-dominated societies far removed from California, including Mexico or Venezuela.

    Mark (66bba6)

  379. How about not changing the definition of marriage from what is has always been. Of course the simple and honest approach is one that they always overlook. You can call a watermelon a cantaloupe, but it will still be a watermelon.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  380. “And let your male friends get hitched to as many females at they so desire. After all, monogamy is no less of a genetically innate facet of the male populace than, according to the GLBT crowd, is homosexuality.”

    Yeah this doesn’t seem to be the way things actually are among my friends — gay friends are wanting to get married but there’s no demand for plural marriage. But if this is what’s stopping you, because of your friends, I suppose you can still just pass a law to let gay people get married and not pass a law for the others and rest assured that things will still be ok.

    joel (64270f)

  381. “Of course the simple and honest approach is one that they always overlook.”

    That’s pretty much my point. Simple and honest is pretty clear even if you’re not invited to wedding.

    joel (64270f)

  382. POA –how do you think we got through the election cycle and a supreme court case without her knowing about the costs and taxes and penalties of Obamacare? It just boggles the mind. I know team R was focused on the jobs message, and Mitt frequently said he’d work to repeal Obamacare– but now I just think maybe this Obamacare mess was not adequately explained in baby terms through speeches and ads. Did the Obamacare message go out from the right in shorthand instead of in large print charts, flashcards and graphics?

    elissa (8d6070)

  383. Why not just let someone else have their happiness?

    So the purpose of redefining marriage is just to make some people feel good about themselves?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  384. She probably didn’t even know about death panels.

    joel (64270f)

  385. “So the purpose of redefining marriage is just to make some people feel good about themselves?”

    You may just be on to this liberty thing after all.

    joel (64270f)

  386. ___________________________________________

    but there’s no demand for plural marriage.

    Coming to a theater near you! And soon available on DVD.


    thenational.ae, Oct 1, 2011

    Sharia councils in Britain are reporting an unexpected and “dramatic” rise in the number of Muslim men taking second or third wives. Official government figures estimate the number of polygamous marriages in Britain at about 1,000. However, Muslim social workers believe the actual total could be 20 times greater.

    The only legal polygamous marriages in the UK are ones that involve foreign nationals who marry in countries where they are lawful. And they have to have been carried out before any of the people involved arrive in Britain. A BBC report this week said British Muslims were getting around this by taking one wife legally and then subsequent ones in unrecognised nikah services carried out in homes or mosques.

    Khola Hasan, a law lecturer and member of the UK’s Islamic Sharia Council, told a Cambridge University law journal that the number of non-registered, nikah-only marriages “is showing a dramatic rise”.

    Tariq Ali, a social worker in Lancashire and co-founder of Project BME, a charity for minority communities based in Darwen, Lancashire, told the Daily Mail that he was encountering many nikah-only marriages in Britain, mainly in the Pakistani community.

    “Every single man of my age who I bump into seems to have a third, fourth or fifth wife,” he said.

    “The issue is going unreported but in the Asian communities this is becoming a way of life. I think the number of polygamous relationships must be 20,000.”

    Mark (66bba6)

  387. She watches the Daily Show and Colbert, my best guess, and that is her gospel,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  388. Joel–does it bother you in the slightest that she is completely misinformed and thinks her whole family is going to get free healthcare now–and that’s what she voted for? I can’t see that helping your side out very much when she faces the cold truth.

    elissa (8d6070)

  389. Want to know one reason conservatives stayed home and didn’t vote? When Mitt started talking that reach across the aisle and work with the libs. Why? Because they know that everytime that we do that, we get screwed. Our elites in congress always move further toward the libs position than they do towards ours. And then the libs use it to crucify our party in the very next election. GW Bush with the Medicare prescription plan, his and Teddy’s no child left behind, GHW Bush’s Read MY Lips and then being talked into actually increasing taxes. That turned off a lot of conservative voters and made them want to hurl, all that talk of kissy, kissy, knowing that the dems would already be holding a knife in their hands to stab us in the back one more time.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  390. “Joel–does it bother you in the slightest that she is completely misinformed and thinks her whole family is going to get free healthcare now–and that’s what she voted for? I can’t see that helping your side out very much when she faces the cold truth.”

    Not really because I figure Obamacare is pretty much a median health reform given its roots. Plus I figure for each one like her there’s another that thinks the kenyan muslism president will death panel them with his communism or something like that.

    joel (64270f)

  391. I’m not fearing that gay marriage will mix with Sharia.

    joel (64270f)

  392. POA –how do you think we got through the election cycle and a supreme court case without her knowing about the costs and taxes and penalties of Obamacare?

    Comment by elissa — 11/8/2012 @ 8:01 pm

    Could be because she goes around wearing this , or maybe these.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  393. So clueless voters who were lied to by the left about Obamacare’s benefits and are about to get screwed by unexpected fees or penalies are no problema for you. Just par for the course to win an election and just another day at the office as far as you’re concerned. Got it.

    elissa (8d6070)

  394. There’s a lot out there and I’m just one person commenting on a blog.

    Would that were true. You have been at least 6 here. And since you ignored my direct questions, and the posted rules, repeatedly ….

    JD (318f81)

  395. He’s way past the Billy Madison mark, treading on the Full Otto.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  396. JD,

    Go ahead and perform retroactive abortion on him, I will become Pro-Choice for this one instance.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  397. 3GT3F3 Thanks again for the blog article.Really thank you! Great.

    crork (9ace40)

  398. You see things like this happen , this, or this and liberals come out in condemnation and total disbelief. They just can’t understand how a teen mother abandons a baby to die in the cold, kills it at her prom, or some kids shoot their classmates. They cannot grasp that these kids are being logical, and are applying the warped morality that abortion teaches.

    Their reasoning is quite logical. If you can kill a baby in the womb right up until the moment of birth, or leave it to die in a closet because of a botched abortion, what’s the difference if you wait a few minutes and then bash its brains out on a bathroom wall? Leave it to die on the side of the road or in a cold garage? Maybe even practice a little abortion a few years down the road by shooting students? What’s the difference except increments of time and location? There is no difference.

    After all, it should be quite reasonable if someone aborted the abortionist because he thinks he is protecting innocent lives of unborn children. (Disclaimer; I do NOT support or condone this view, just stating that this view could be justified in someones mind that does it) After all, they would be using the reasoning of the abortionist. If you can abort a baby at any time in the womb, even up to birth and after, what does a few years matter either.

    I used to be Pro-Abortion myself. I will not use the euphemism of Pro-Choice that Pro-Abortionists choose to use in order to make it sound less offensive.

    The conclusion is this; you are either totally human back to the very moment of conception and up to the very minute of your death and deserving the protection of your life, or you are not human and can be aborted at any moment of your life by anyone. There is no magical moment of time when a foetus, zygote, or whatever (these are just other names that mean offspring or baby) transcends from the not human to human. It will never be a dog, a goat, a snake, or as they like to say, a clump of cells. At any stage of life, we are just clumps of cells.

    It is not part of the mothers body such as an appendix, gall bladder, or kidney. Its one and only destiny is as a unique and distinctive individual whose DNA identifies it as a completely separate entity. Since it is a human being, even back to the moment of conception, it is then deserving of our protection from that moment forward. If it is not, then we are all in peril of our lives, for our right to life could be seen as an inconvenience by the powers that be and subject to termination against our will.


    “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
    Ronald Reagan

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  399. “How about not needing a reason and just letting gay folks get married?”

    No, not under the law.

    If it comes up for a vote, I’ll vote against it.

    It’s not a huge issue, and I can live with it if I’m outvoted, but I’m agaisnt any kind of state recognition of homosexual relationships.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  400. The republicans should be trying to get the pot smokers to vote for them, not the dick smokers.

    mg (31009b)

  401. Here’s a concrete thing the RNC should get to work on – duplicating the extraordinarily sophisticated database that the Obama team put together. It won the election for him (although he may have still needed Sandy and some miscalculations by the Romney team as well).

    Seriously if the RNC hasn’t already tasked somebody with this they’re incompetent.

    Gerald A (f26857)

  402. hey, let’s take a close look at the election turn-outs in WA and CO in 2014. Maybe enough libs will be too stoned to bother voting.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  403. @75- There’s no evidence of that. She recognizes the party has a problem when it keeps nominating loons and keeps losing. That’s common sense enough.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  404. 398. I’m living on the same street. I have no objection to a common law status, inheriting applicable property, insurance payouts and benefits and law should reflect that.

    But this argument about ‘love’ and ‘happiness’ is so trite soap operas should recoil.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  405. @75- There’s no evidence of that. She recognizes the party has a problem when it keeps nominating loons and keeps losing.

    Rubbish. IMP is invested in this Team R is loons nonsense. Pushing it hard. I would be shocked if he isn’t trying to work it into its JournoLister column. Team R was dead after 2008, right?

    JD (ac62a1)

  406. Was reminded this morning of the economic data at the time the Dems took over Congress in 2007. 50 months in a row of job growth and unemployment was less than 5%, Dodd and Frank took their roles as committee leaders…

    And it was all George Bush’s fault.

    Every reality that is obfuscated and lost to the public consciousness adds up and continues to haunt. The media somehow prefers to provide lies for cover.

    Unless that changes it doesn’t matter who we nominate. We could nominate Rubio and Mia Love and the repubs will still be called the party of rich angry white men with 2 token candidates.

    Here’s the question- will Obama do anything responsible to address the economic crisis, or just posture in a way that looks good while things collapse?

    Can everybody say Cloward-Piven?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  407. By all means, move the goalpost more.

    The left will take that as approval for them to move more leftward and promote candidates who sound like Hugo Chavez.

    Republicans will then sigh in dismay that good, America-loving Democrats like Obama are in the past, and the GOP has an opportunity to bring former Obama voters under the tent.

    Research the nasty things Harry Truman said about his enemies in the 1940s. Look into how he treated Americans who became Communist whistle-blowers.

    Now you guys think Truman was one of the last good Democrats, simply because he’s part of the past.

    Your grandchildren will think the same of Obama.

    If you have no use for my values, you have no need of my vote. I supported the Republicans in 2008 and then again in 2012, only to see them badly lose because apparently my values made them a liability.

    Surely there are enough moderates out there to replace the dwindling supply of pro-life voters. I mean, we’re such an endangered species and everything, you won’t miss us at all when you capture the Lady Gaga vote.

    I started going Galt in 2008. I’m beyond that. Now I’m going “values voters shrugged.”

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  408. DCSCA basically calls half of America “loons”. The International Man of Parody finds a way to devalue even cheap insults.

    That’s because he’s the International Man of Parody.

    SPQR (768505)

  409. 407. “I supported the Republicans in 2008 and then again in 2012, only to see them badly lose because apparently my values made them a liability.”

    IMHO, thread winner.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  410. Its like you learn my thoughts! You seem to grasp so much approximately this, like you wrote the ebook in it or something. I think that you simply can do with a few percent to power the message house a little bit, however instead of that, that is great blog. A great read. I will certainly be back.

    yuddle,technology,tech (1c6484)

  411. 406. And another worthy.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  412. PS – I distinctly remember being told in the primaries that we had to go with Romney over Santorum because Romney was an attractive moderate who proved he can win elections in blue states.

    Romney couldn’t carry his home state or his governor state.

    Was it all those evangelicals in Massachusetts and Michigan? Are you really going to blame that on the pro-life creationists who could have been the tipping point in California?

    You’ll take Republican governors elected by evangelicals in red states. You’ll be relieved that evangelicals turned the tide in North Carolina. You’ll gloat about GOP control of the House because evangelicals in the Bible belt gave you lots of House critters.

    Then you’ll promptly call them a dying breed and throw them under the bus in favor of Lady Parts voters come 2016.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  413. Like Kev said on a prior thread, the silver lining here is BootBlack gets economic RESET on his watch rather than the Rich White Luddite’s.

    EU and Greece have been negotiating the next debt write down for 40 days, Greek parliament has voted for austerity over rioters opposition and now EU doesn’t know that they will follow thru, certainly not this week.

    If anything Spain is in worse shape, Berlusconi is in revolt, and Merkel has elections looming.

    Japan has lost purchase and her carabiner is unclasped.

    Mr. “Will work with anyone” thinks he’s been deified.

    DOOM.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  414. Via CBS News archive:

    January 31, 2012 8:57 PM
    TAMPA, Fla. (AP) – Voters in Tuesday’s Florida Republican primary chose Mitt Romney as the candidate best able to beat President Barack Obama in the fall, preferring electability over ideology in lifting the former Massachusetts governor to a broad victory despite concerns that his issue positions are not conservative enough.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  415. VAVoter, you don’t really understand why Obama won. Obama won because he did a better job of getting his voters to show up. The harping on abortion rights failed to give Obama an advantage among independants, it was successful in motivating enough Democrats to show up to put Obama barely in the majority.

    If a few hundred thousand more GOP voters had gone to the polls in some key states, Romney would have won.

    SPQR (768505)

  416. If the more rigid Teas are able to push out or purge the moderate Rs from the party (as it appears a number of commenters do want to happen), I fear they will discover in short order that what remains will have become akin to a fledgling third party because much of the national party structure and fundraising mechanisms will also have been jettisoned.

    If the moderate Rs succeed in driving out or purging the Teas (as it appears a number of commenters do want to happen) I fear they will discover in short order that the loss of that passion and energy to the Republican party will likewise cause what remains to become akin to a smaller, marginalized third party.

    And in my opinion nether of these two weakened “third party-type versions” (whatever they are called) that would emerge from the ashes of the GOP, can survive or make headway against the growing progressive/media juggernaut.

    Three days out and after reading thousands of comments on dozens of right leaning threads I do not see this intraparty fissure and blame game ending well at all.

    elissa (a394d7)

  417. 416 – hunker down four more years.

    mg (31009b)

  418. ______________________________________________

    But I don’t understand how my analysis of Romney’s immigration position is wrong. Romney got half the hispanic support Bush got. I think he should have done better, because he probably wouldn’t lead all that differently from Bush on immigration.

    Dustin, I just came across the following, which did surprise me because it seems to almost mimic what I mentioned previously. I suspected the type of ideology (and, in turn, the issues) that animated more Latinos than not, but it was based originally on a guess and not on an actual survey.

    A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person” – compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

    I’m not being purely flippant when I suspect that a society like Mexico — stable, prosperous and full of common sense but devoid of corruption and horrific crime (<– that portion I admit is sarcastic) — is our nation's future. Certainly that of sub-sections like California.

    BTW, the belief that many Latino voters are necessarily less leftwing than people in general (ie, of all stripes and nationalities) is another theory I had a hunch was more hype than reality.

    The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.

    Don’t cry for us, Argentina.

    Mark (66bba6)

  419. _____________________________________________

    Comment by elissa — 11/9/2012 @ 8:23 am

    I fully agree.

    BTW, I forgot to note that the excerpt I posted above was from a brief article posted to nationalreview.com, dated 11-7-12.

    Mark (66bba6)

  420. 413.Like Kev said on a prior thread, the silver lining here is BootBlack gets economic RESET on his watch rather than the Rich White Luddite’s

    True, but there will be a crisis along the way and we know what the one and company like to do with a crisis- take advantage of it.

    When there is a crisis the main thing is to choose who you want to blame and then make things happen that help retain your power.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  421. I just love how these liberal talking heads on TV and the net are giving the GOP advice. Saying that the GOP needs to moderate its views about abortion, same sex marriage, taxes, spending, etc., etc., etc…. ad infinitum.

    If they think the GOP should moderate its stance on same-sex “marriage”, they do not know what they are talking about.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  422. @75- There’s no evidence of that. She recognizes the party has a problem when it keeps nominating loons and keeps losing. That’s common sense enough.

    And what about the loons on the Democratic side? Does she not consider that?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  423. 415, 416. On the contrary, the GOP lost because Amerikkka chose to play out a losing hand rather than fold.

    Despite everyone’s best efforts here to re-educate the Obots that venture here Amerikkka is not ready for the medicine.

    They kicked the can down the road.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  424. 420. Good point. ‘This is going to pinch, just a little bit’, as the tech sucks marrow from the pelvis with a number 8.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  425. If a few hundred thousand more GOP voters had gone to the polls in some key states, Romney would have won.

    Which states would they be?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  426. Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and either Colorado or Iowa.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  427. If a few hundred thousand more independents had broken for Romney, he would have won a few swing states.

    GOP primary voters told us not to worry about the far-right showing up because Romney could steal Massachusetts, Michigan and a few other handy states. The lure of winning moderates would overwhelm the loss of dwindling evangelicals.

    Iowa Republicans made sure we got Romney, and then they couldn’t even deliver their state to him.

    You can’t simultaneously tell us that far-right conservatives are a dwindling endangered species, and then say we would have been enough to tip the election.

    Romney specifically avoided conservative media. He didn’t go on Fox. He didn’t get prominent talk radio hosts to introduce him at rallies. He made zero effort to solidify his base because he didn’t need us.

    You can’t that you don’t need us but yet you really do.

    With all this dumping on conservatives, all they’re going to do is retract from the GOP moderate cult even more. You can kiss goodbye to that House majority in 2014, Republican governors, Republican city councils who work to resist illegal immigration in their cities, and so on.

    We’ll get out of your way and stop trying to protect the red states from turning blue.

    When Texas is a blue state in about a decade, you can take comfort in knowing that you *almost* had enough moderate votes to stop it.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  428. VAVoter, didn’t your preschool teacher teach you the saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    SPQR (768505)

  429. SPQR – You mean like throwing conservatives under the bus when they’re the only winning demographic you have? You mean like lecturing, screaming at, and dumping on conservatives every chance you get, begging for our money in 2014 and then hiding us in the attic like a crazy uncle in 2016?

    We know when we’re not welcome. We know when we’re not wanted around.

    There are enough Lady Parts voters to replace us. I suggest you get to work on finding them this time.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  430. VAVoter,

    Friend, I share your frustration with the election results, however, throwing your hands in the air and taking your ball and leaving the playground will not defeat leftists—it will only enable them.

    Also, Texas will not turn blue in a decade. It’s too big of a state to switch that fast. Also, a lot of conservative people are re-locating there from blue states.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  431. I’m not taking my ball and going home.

    I’m simply making my vote more attractive to the GOP.

    The best way to get the GOP to spend money on you is to say you’re voting for them. Republicans spend the majority of their donations chasing after people who don’t even like them and will break for the Dems when it really matters.

    My vote is not owed to anyone, especially to someone who insults me to my face and calls me an embarrassment while thinking my vote is owed to them.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  432. “And in my opinion nether of these two weakened “third party-type versions” (whatever they are called) that would emerge from the ashes of the GOP, can survive or make headway against the growing progressive/media juggernaut.”

    - elissa

    If the Republicans are going to become a perpetually marginalized force in a two-party system due to an ideological intraparty split, then they should bust up the two-party system while they can and out the Democrats in the same boat – having to piece together patchwork coalitions on a bill-to-bill basis.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  433. Social conservatives shored up Republican strongholds in states like Arkansas. Moderates and independents caused the GOP to retreat in states like Virginia.

    Keep spending that money to lose even more purple states.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  434. *put the Democrats in the same boat

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  435. 428. Pardon, correct me if I’m wrong, but there hasn’t been any evidence I’ve seen that so-cons are those that did not turn out.

    dbnr made no such implication, only suggesting that libertarians might be standing off, i.e., so-libs.

    Gateway had a post up that Evangelicals turned out in record numbers on exit poll evidence.

    The GOP did not emphasize social issues, the Fascists did.

    Trende’s article on OH stats showed it was down-on-their-luck conservatives who did not darken poll booths, those with whom Romney and the rest of us did not connect.

    VAVoter is rejecting the implication that we lost because of so-cons.

    We in fact lost all over because we haven’t made the case for self-reliance, individual initiative and responsibility, capitalism and social cohesion.

    Romney did well, he came around to that message toward the end, but it was way too little, way too late and frankly, he was on his own.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  436. One more thing, and then I’m gone:

    Maybe a big reason why more people don’t embrace/vote for conservative values is because they watch even the Republicans wince at how embarrassing those values are.

    The message we’re sending to young women right now is that you better not talk about being pro-life, not even on conservative websites, because that stuff is embarrassing.

    The message we’re sending to young married couples is that only fringe wackos have a gun permit or join the NRA, only crazy people think it’s legitimate to resist the gay agenda, etc.

    If young people see no political avenue for those values, they’ll give up.

    The GOP establishment is shoving its own electorate to the left and acting shocked when Hispanic teenagers don’t see the point in being pro-life.

    It’s called a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    But whatevs, you guys are clearly more savvy and experienced at winning elections, cause, you know, the GOP is super popular in California….

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  437. VAVoter–with the power of hindsight, from your vantage point in Virginia who of the R primary candidates do you think could have run a better campaign nationally than Romney– and might have beaten Obama in 2012? Note–I’m not asking you to divulge your own personal preference from the list of primary candidates, nor am I asking who you believe could have won Virginia’s electoral votes–I’m more interested in your opinion on this when you view the country as a whole.

    elissa (a394d7)

  438. As I said in the comments to Kim Strassel’s OpEd on WSJ-Online:
    The GOP needs to reach out to the Stoner/Slut Vote!

    Now, the comment may be hyperbole, but we can do that and still maintain a principled Federalist position by emphasizing The Rule of Law; and the fact that continuing down the path we’re on will lead to Fiscal Armageddon (see Athens Greece for what happens when a dependent citizenry has the goodies cut off – who’s to say that can’t happen in Philly, or Baltimore, or Chicago, or any other large urban area with a dependent class?) because the government – at whatever level – cannot be Your Mamma, giving you all the stuff you want. At some point, you actually have to swim, or sink, on your own, because we’ve run out of OPM!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  439. Indeed, Gary, I find it hard to believe that evangelicals in NC turned out in droves to flip their state red, and yet mere miles across the state line, VA evangelicals all stayed home.

    It had nothing to do with us so-cons showing up. I showed up for Romney, and so did my spouse.

    But we’re used to taking the blame. Every time Republicans lose an election, regardless of how liberal the candidate was, so-cons get thrown under the bus.

    Ya’ll go ahead and nominate Christie in 2016. I know exactly that’s what you’re going to do.

    Then on the day it matters most, he won’t even be able to flip New Jersey.

    And you’ll blame that on phantom evangelicals in Ohio.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  440. castro/chavez-2016

    mg (31009b)

  441. VAVoter–with the power of hindsight, from your vantage point in Virginia who of the R primary candidates do you think could have run a better campaign nationally than Romney– and might have beaten Obama in 2012? Note–I’m not asking you to divulge your own personal preference from the list of primary candidates, nor am I asking who you believe could have won Virginia’s electoral votes–I’m more interested in your opinion on this when you view the country as a whole.

    I still would have chosen Romney. Conservatives like him and showed up for him. But I would have run a better campaign that addressed the attacks the Dems pounded on abortion, I’d have made Romney appear on BOR (even Obama did that in 2008) and instead of running on a weak plan to create 12 million jobs, I would have gone more Reagan a lot sooner.

    In short, I’d have remembered that no amount of compromise or moderation will ever flip PA into a swing state, I wouldn’t have bothered wasting money in Michigan, and I would have shored up the base in states like Ohio – not just socially, but for those worried about Romney governing the way he did in Mass.

    Like you guys yourselves are here saying, if a few more people on the right had broken for Romney in swing states, he could have taken Ohio and Virginia.

    Those missing voters were not evangelicals. They were libertarians.

    Republicans have GOT to stop chasing after whatever narrative the Dems put out there. Dems get Sandra Fluke to go all “lady parts” and now Republicans are convinced the lady parts voters were the key demographic they lost.

    Come 2016, Democrats will be running ads about something else, like, Republicans will persecute the spirituality of Indian immigrants, and suddenly we’ll be told that we lost because some phantom evangelical hates Indians.

    Shore up your base, get them excited, and then help start a dialogue with immigrants that progressive policies will turn America back into the country they just left.

    Don’t tell immigrants that your own base is embarrassing, and then act surprised when they think your base is embarrassing.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  442. Plainly, since we’re looking at four years of trouble ahead, its time to make lemonade.

    Here in MN, the Republican legislature used two years to cut costs, mainly on the backs of educators. Of a like $3 Billion shortfall they only deferred $750K.

    But they made no headway on regulation, administrations are still ballooning, and in part following Republican ‘initiatives’.

    We gotta do better next time and not sure we’ve even got the right people in the pipeline after 2010.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  443. From Jack Marshall.

    First of all, the Republicans aren’t “me.” Second, a close election like this can turn on lots of random factors, and this one did. It is comforting to attribute the victory to the essential righteousness of the cause, but that is the purest confirmation bias. If true, the GOP majority in Congress would not have been confirmed virtually intact: the 2010 tea party onslaught would have been reversed. That is what has happened in the past, as in the 1976 elections. If true, the GOP wouldn’t have gotten to 30 state Governorships, a record.

    I think the Obama campaign was the most dishonest and shameless I have observed since Nixon—from “he’s not one of us” to the Joe Soptic “Romney killed my wife” to Harry Reid calling Romney a tax cheat to the mind-boggling lie that this administration didn’t really increase the debt to the calumny that Romney wanted to take away a woman’s right to contraception. I gave voters more credit than they lived up to: I thought more of them would be repelled. Polls showed that 50% believed the mantra that the economic problems were all attributable to Bush, when the roots of the housing collapse were firmly entrenched in the Democratic Congresses and the Clinton Administration as well. I found the cynical and dangerous strategy of pitting young against old, single women against married women, Catholics against non-religious, gays against Evangelicals, black against white, Hispanics against Anglos shocking and sad, especially coming from a “post-partisan” President. I found the degree to which the media became a full-fledged ally of the Democratic re-election campaign a genuine threat to democracy, and even worse than in 2004—and I didn’t think that was possible. Without the media intentionally downplaying Benghazi, Solyndra, Fast and Furious and more, Obama would have lost. Without lucky interference from Candy Crowley when the President was spinning the truth, he would have lost. If the President were white, he would have lost….big, I think. I don’t know that Sandy was a clincher, but it was lucky. For Sandy to have been more important than a US ambassador being massacred defies logic. No matter how I may sound, most of this doesn’t make me angry. The press bias makes me angry, however. And the successful effort to portray the reasonable, Supreme Court sanctioned requirement of ID for voting as a racist plot disgusted me, and disgusts me still. Kudos to Axelrod, as a Machiavellian, for thinking of it, and Holder was a good, if disgraceful, soldier for carrying out the plan. The deftest playing of the race card from a crew that did it better than anyone.

    It’s naive to think that Silver, who is essentially a stat-savvy gambler, is intrinsically more astute than all the other pollsters and political analysts is, honestly, ridiculous. He could have been wrong, even by his own inflated odds–what would you be saying then? He took a big risk and it paid off, like similar bets have paid off for smart gamblers before. My hat’s off to him. He’ll mess up. They always do. And I find the willingness of smart people to believe that all human decisions can be reduced to numbers and algorithms, as people like Silver believe, more than alarming. It’s not true in baseball, and its not true in politics.

    Confirmation bias is arguably the most dangerous bias of all. This election is a big test of that for Democrats. I don’t expect them to pass it.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  444. Comment by VAVoter — 11/9/2012 @ 10:20 am

    One of Romney’s principal advisers was Stuart Stevens, whom I believe has a lot to learn.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  445. …since we’re looking at four years of trouble ahead….

    Hate to break it to you, but it’ll be more than four years.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  446. The Press….

    In 2004, Evan Thomas (then at Newsweek) famously noted that the media was worth 10-15 pts for Kerry.
    He was just a few cycles ahead of himself.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  447. Speaking of trouble….
    More Leading From Behind, this time it looks like Mali!
    Who will be the sacrificial ambassador?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  448. I’ll say it again unless it gets lost in the 400+ comments:
    Obama lied and the election died.

    Sen. Casey who won re-election and beat Santorum 6 years ago is “pro-life”. I think I read where the D who won in IN is also “Pro-life”- so dems are willing to run “pro-life” in regions where it is a winning idea (even though it is only to be muzzled, but that’s another post).

    There were African-american pastors against Obama. There were Catholics pro-Romney.

    Key- learn to communicate without shooting yourself, communicate that goes past the lies that the casual voter believes.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  449. This time I’m gone, and I promise for real cause I’m hungry for lunch.

    If/when the Democrats succeed in snuffing out so-con activists, you’re really naive if you think they’ll run out of ammo against Republicans.

    Gun rights will be the next to go. The Lady Parts vote will become the “a gun owner shot my child” vote, and 2nd amendment supporters will be the new thing that scared off independents.

    After that, school choice supporters. “Vote like your child’s education depends on it.” Oops, looks like Republicans lost again, this time because of those controversial school choice one-issue wedge voters.

    They’ll chip away until you lose every demographic and every party platform.

    Cause, you know, the country is changing, and gun-owning freedom-loving independents are just not effective as a base anymore.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  450. Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 11/9/2012 @ 10:33 a

    Thank you for giving the detail. My only disagreement with you is whether he was early or not. I think it was true in 2004, for if the press was half honest about Kerry’s behavior in the 70′s his “reporting for duty” campaign would have been laughed right out of the water and he would have gotten 40%.

    But it is indeed certainly true today.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  451. There will be a major push by this administration, and certain Senators, to curtail firearms in the marketplace.
    They’re talking about semi-autos
    (rifles mainly, but I would not be surprised if they extended that to shotguns and pistols – remember the Brits even banned pump shotguns),
    and there is talk about going after that perennial favorite:
    The Saturday Night Special.

    In reaction, word from the annual gathering of the National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers is that everything…EVERYTHING…is flying off the shelves.
    One importer/distributor of civilian-legal AK’s sold out his year’s production of 20K+ rifles in just a few hours.
    Ammo in military calibers (.223/5.56NATO, .308/7.62NATO, 9mm, .40SW, .45acp) is being grabbed from wherever it is available, and at whatever price.

    Some segments of the country are almost in “panic mode” over what they perceive to be coming.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  452. I think there is something afoot in the UN on guns that the one just lent his support to.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  453. 448. “Key- learn to communicate without shooting yourself, communicate that goes past the lies that the casual voter believes.”

    I think your providing the summation.

    Obviously we’re not done with Lib activist judges, or vigilant GLBT city councilpoisons. The hypocrisy that our side has a patent on moral posturing is repugnant.

    No one should roll over for paedophilia as alternative life-style education in their primary school.

    But moral politics should be local politics. The Feds are the perverts in creating a mandate to crowd the bedroom with bureaucrats.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  454. Yes, there is a renewed push to enact a global scheme to control arms shipments, particularly to keep them out of the hands of civilians – can’t have people actually able to defend themselves against the depredations of their “democratically elected” (one-man, one-vote, one-time) Dear-Leaders.
    Canada was a major player in scuttling the last attempt just a few months ago, we’ll see if they can make it stick as our Foreign-Policy Establishment is in-the-bag for Gun Control.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  455. But moral politics should be local politics. The Feds are the perverts in creating a mandate to crowd the bedroom with bureaucrats.

    When you tell so-cons (and libertarians) that the government simply must be in the business of approving marriages, you give them no choice but to ask the government to restrict it.

    Conservatives would be overjoyed if Republicans came out tomorrow and said, we’re abolishing the requirement to apply for a marriage license, everyone can file taxes together and buy health insurance with whoever they want.

    With that the threat of gay-agenda lawsuits aimed at churches is gone, and conservatives are relieved.

    Stop accepting the straw men than the government has to be everywhere in the first place.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  456. Let’s see how this same train of thought is playing to Hispanic, Asian and Indian immigrants:

    Republicans have accepted the premise of minimum wage, affirmative action, low-hanging lawsuit fruit, forced public education in the school we tell you to go to, and limitations on marriage licenses, to be given out to whatever demographic has the most money to buy their civil rights….

    ….but we’re the party of limited government.

    VAVoter (eb404f)

  457. Yeah, that’ll work!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  458. 448. Who will be the sacrificial ambassador?

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 11/9/2012 @ 10:34 am

    Not me, bro. I’m done. I did my twenty.

    I’m Italian. Family’s from the vicinity of Napoli. I think if you look at the list of Medal of Honor winners we are somewhat over-represented, to use the language of affirmative action. When I was stationed in Sandy Eggo I never drove down I-5 without giving a hearty “eh, Paisan!” to Manilla John as I passed Basilone road approaching Pendleton.

    Italians can fight like tigers. As long as you’ve got a country that’s worth more than a cup of warm piss. I’m not sure this one makes the cut. A country that returns Obama to a second term?

    I look at this guy in the light of Benghazi and I long for the day when our government just sold out the Poles, like we did after WWII. Or the Hmong after Vietnam.

    Italians are supposedly the sellouts. The side-switchers you can’t count on. But who’s the sellout here? I wasn’t the guy who made the call to let Americans die without an attempt at a fight.

    There could very well be a realignment in this country. George Bush could have been the anomoly. I so, count me out. I’ll be mixing up some homebrew, making love to my woman, and worshiping my God.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  459. _____________________________________________

    Italians can fight like tigers

    But idiocy knows no boundaries. How much you wanna bet that the following geniuses in the court system mentioned below are of left-leaning bent? That is, people who are so intrinsically devoid of common sense and basic logic they might actually be somewhat mentally defective.

    “Oh, how cruel and heartless that the mean, arrogant scientists didn’t provide enough aide and comfort to the people smacked by a big earthquake!! We the government must help the sad, pathetic victims! xoxoxo!”

    dailybeast.com, October 2012:

    Scientists cannot predict earthquakes, of course, but on Monday, a L’Aquila court found the seven officials who were at the March 31, 2009, meeting guilty of multiple manslaughter and abetting grave injury for “providing an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken.”

    They were sentenced to six years in prison, $10 million each in damages and the cost of the trial. They must each pay $2.6 million immediately. “I am devastated,” said Boschi, one of the condemned, after the hearing. “I thought I was acquitted. To be honest, I still don’t even understand what I was accused of.”

    ^ I just bet — I have a hunch — that the folks who handed down the ruling in Italy would be huge fans of politicians like, say, Barack Obama.

    Mark (66bba6)

  460. I see you missed the qualification:

    As long as you’ve got a country that’s worth more than a cup of warm piss.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  461. Yes, the Italian Judicial System really covered itself in acclaim with that ruling, building on a decade or two of landmarks like it.

    And, I say this with a grandfather whose last name was Riccio (Anglicized to Richey).

    As to GySgt Basilone:
    They make damn few like him anymore.
    Sempre Fi!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  462. Look, Mark, if you want to make the claim Italy is one effed up country you’ve got a friend in me. What do you think my family is doing here?

    Just saying, if this country is cool with sacrificing an Ambassador, an Air Force veteran like Sean Smith (who seems too often to get lost in the noise but deserves to be remembered) and a couple of SEALs then I’m not cool with this country.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  463. Can the GOP do anything about BenGhazi scandal? Seems strange to me that various principals are resigning. Now it is Patreaus for infidelity? Leftards insisting he’s a big asshole for cheating. Strange how BJ’s in the oval office for Bubba were fine. Or allegations of rape and numerous extramarital affairs. “It was only sex.” How about NY Times innuendos about McCain affair in ’08? Of course all sorts of rumors about Choom such as membership in Chitown gay bath house or admission of being coked up a whole year in college?

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  464. PETRAEUS, I mean. Amusing these things come out right after election, including Iran shooting down drone. Even more amusing so many companies furloughing workers. can’t be good for the unemployment rate.

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  465. Petraeus resigns!

    Icy (d0fdc3)

  466. “Some segments of the country are almost always in “panic mode” over what they perceive to be coming.”

    - AD-RtR/OS!

    FTFY

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  467. “As long as you’ve got a country that’s worth more than a cup of warm piss. I’m not sure this one makes the cut. A country that returns Obama to a second term?”

    - Steve57, after Obama is elected to a second term.

    “As long as you’ve got a country that’s worth more than a cup of warm piss. I’m not sure this one makes the cut. A country that returns Bush to a second term?”

    - A bunch of liberals, after Bush is elected to a second term

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  468. 465. Oh, great. The adult on Il Douche’s team of Fascists was shagging a Lib while Arabia torches ME policy, including loss of Ambassador.

    We so need nuclear winter.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  469. 465. Oh, great. The adult on Il Douche’s team of Fascists was shagging a Lib while Arabia torches ME policy, including loss of Ambassador.

    We so need nuclear winter.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  470. I say the Repubs start rumors that the democrats are going to legislate salt, sugar, and fat intake.
    No more rice and beans, tacos, turnip greens, pinto beans, fried chicken, cornbread.
    What will people do when they have the munchies from their legal pot?

    http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2012/11/nanny_state_strikes_again_nyc_bans_food_donations_to_the_homeless.php

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  471. “What will people do when they have the munchies from their legal pot?”

    - MD in Philly

    Probably eat babies, like I’ve heard smoking marijuana makes you do.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  472. Comment by Leviticus — 11/9/2012 @ 1:28 pm

    C’mon Leviticus, where is your sense of irony? Legal to smoke pot but not to donate food to a homeless shelter?

    Yes, I know different areas, but still the same country anyway.

    Besides, the issue is not what pot makes you do, it’s what you don’t do.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  473. Pot legal. Cheetos and Big Gulps not. Gotcha

    JD (ac62a1)

  474. “Legal to smoke pot but not to donate food to a homeless shelter? Yes, I know different areas, but still the same country anyway.”

    - MD in Philly

    I mean… I could do you one better for absurdity, by that standard: legal to smoke pot in some areas and not legal to smoke pot in others.

    On paper, the US is one country. In reality, I’m not so sure. I think of myself as a New Mexican before I think of myself as an American.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  475. Well, it’s legal to go 70mph in some areas, and not in others.
    What’s your f…ing point, that a Republic sucks?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  476. I think of myself as a New Mexican before I think of myself as an American.

    And that was just the prevailing thought prior to the Civil War (see the reasoning behind Lee’s resignation for Commanding West Point, and joining the Army of Virginia).

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  477. 474. Well as long as confessions are in order, I consider myself a reprobate first, a Christian second and an Amerikkkan somewhere after father and some others.

    Today’s news, Obie has a mandate to raise taxes s’more, a recession is guaranteed anyway, the Ambassador to Libya knew diplomats serve where help not available, ..,

    tells me Amerikkkans are really, ssslloooowww learners. You, Frenchies, no more crap from me.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  478. “And that was just the prevailing thought prior to the Civil War.”

    - AD-RtR/OS!

    I know. Interesting, right?

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  479. Gotta tell y’all, sure glad its Boehner standing between us and the maelstrom. /sarc

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  480. So, Leviticus, how do you think New Mexico would fare against Texas?

    nk (875f57)

  481. Depends on what you mean.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  482. Obama administration is most corrupt in my lifetime and the media helps conceal it.

    SPQR (2d10d1)

  483. I find our fare superior.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  484. You could say that when it comes to fare, I think we’d fare fairly well.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  485. Was patraeus sleeping with Affleck? There so affectionate of each other. Makes me want to puke.

    mg (31009b)

  486. how do you think New Mexico would fare against Texas?

    Why would it be any different on the Field-of-Battle, than on the Gridiron?

    Would NM even require “One Ranger”?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  487. Kinda think Civil hostilities will be primarily urban on rural.

    Looking at the Blue cleanup post-Sandy I think the urbanites should sue for peace w/in 48 hours.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  488. I mean, should Texas want to annex New Mexico. (God know why it would want to.) You’re not part of America, you’re your own country, so we’ll just go back to 1847 or some such time.

    nk (875f57)

  489. Sigh. Your comment, that you are a New Mexican first and an American second. For somebody who wants to be a lawyer, the kindest word for that statement is vacuous.

    nk (875f57)

  490. 489. Yeah, if they’re smart they’ll just declare neutrality.

    They could just use NM as a midden when its all over.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  491. Actually, NM was part of TX (at least to the banks of the Rio Grande), until it was merged with AZ to be part of the AZ Territory following the War With Mexico.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  492. “Your comment, that you are a New Mexican first and an American second. For somebody who wants to be a lawyer, the kindest word for that statement is vacuous.”

    - nk

    I said I think of myself as a New Mexican first and an American second. What I am, metaphysically or whatever, is anybody’s guess. What does that have to do with wanting to be a lawyer? It’s a cultural thing. I have gobs of respect for American legal constructs.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  493. Besides, I’m pretty sure NM has enough weaponized fissile material to keep Texas honest.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  494. I had two gyros sandwiches today, myself. With tomato and onion no sauce. I guess I misunderstood your context. Sorry.

    nk (875f57)

  495. Comment by Leviticus — 11/9/2012 @ 2:06 pm
    I mean… I could do you one better for absurdity, by that standard: legal to smoke pot in some areas and not legal to smoke pot in others.
    - You are being exceptionally difficult for my just wanting to point out something that seemed funny because of it’s absurdity.

    On paper, the US is one country. In reality, I’m not so sure.
    How long did it take you to figure that out? Fer crying out load, Aggies and Longhorns aren’t so sure they’re from the same state!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  496. I got to stay a night in Hatch on my way east it was charming and tasty and for sure I’ll go back

    happyfeet (8bde8e)

  497. I had two gyros sandwiches today, myself.
    The only kind I ever get anymore are with the prepackaged meat that they heat up.

    With tomato and onion no sauce.
    No sauce? Bloomberg making rules for Chicago now too?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  498. Aggies and Longhorns aren’t so sure they’re from the same state!

    …or that they want to be!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  499. feets, tell us, what is your opinion of a country where it is legal to alter one’s consciousness with pot but not give food to a homeless shelter?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  500. Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ biographer is the ‘lady’ in the scandal.

    I’d say she’s a tad tall for him, he must have an obstructed view of the horizon.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  501. It tells me that we need a constitutional amendment mandating a Separation of Charity and State.

    I wonder if it exists anywhere in the profuse writings of Jefferson?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  502. So the trolls tell us that its the gay marriage issue that hurts the GOP but when I point out the freakin’ obvious that Obama did not deviate from the GOP presidential nominees’ positions until only five months ago, we get a stutteringly stupid retreat to a vague “weel that was an example”.

    What I expect from the usual dishonest Democrats.

    SPQR (2d10d1)

  503. No sauce? Bloomberg making rules for Chicago now too?

    Comment by MD in Philly — 11/9/2012 @ 4:02
    pm

    ;) The sauce is either some fake thing full of preservatives, or real yogurt with chopped cucumber and chives that screams salmonella. Just me.

    nk (875f57)

  504. “You are being exceptionally difficult for my just wanting to point out something that seemed funny because of it’s absurdity.”

    - MD in Philly

    Sorry. Stressful day.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  505. PowerLine and Commentary are asking what/who was behind the Petraeus decision, why now if something over and done with.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/petraeus-resigns-is-there-a-benghazi-connection.php

    Comment by nk — 11/9/2012 @ 4:22 pm
    I’ll have to try to not think about that the next time I have one.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  506. Comment by Leviticus — 11/9/2012 @ 4:25 pm

    Sorry to hear that.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  507. We had this discusion couple or three years back, MD. This is the gyros you’ll find in Greece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawarma

    The one they sell, here, in fast food shops, is illegal over there, because of difficulty of quality control.

    nk (875f57)

  508. Make your own sauce. Plain Dannon, finely chopped cucumber, chives if you like them, what else do you like? Pepper? Oregano? Dill? The gyros is already way spicy. Start easy.

    nk (875f57)

  509. Thanks, MD. Nothing serious. Crunchtime for my casenote.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  510. No, I don’t think there is a Benghazi connection. I think there is f*** up at the highest levels. Unless Petreaus was having an affair with Hillary, he should have been out the minute it happened.

    nk (875f57)

  511. So the trolls tell us that its the gay marriage issue that hurts the GOP but when I point out the freakin’ obvious that Obama did not deviate from the GOP presidential nominees’ positions until only five months ago, we get a stutteringly stupid retreat to a vague “weel that was an example”.

    it demonstrates the “value” of their advice.

    Also, Texas will not turn blue in a decade. It’s too big of a state to switch that fast. Also, a lot of conservative people are re-locating there from blue states.

    Texas was a deep blue state decades ago.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  512. On paper, the US is one country. In reality, I’m not so sure. I think of myself as a New Mexican before I think of myself as an American.

    Comment by Leviticus — 11/9/2012 @ 2:06 pm

    Actually that is not the case. The United States is made up of 50 Sovereign States.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  513. Mr. Dr. America is in a pickle.

    It’s like how we used to talk about Russia… it’s not the people it’s the government.

    Except a LOT of our people are

    food stampers

    union trash

    “disabled”

    government employees

    or most loathsome of all…

    journalists.

    These ones, we should key their cars and shun their families.

    happyfeet (8bde8e)

  514. So no drilling on Federal property, no littering, no fornicating, doing herbs or pissing.

    Nice little country you had there, plebes.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  515. ==So no drilling on Federal property, no littering, no fornicating, doing herbs or pissing==

    Well gg, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Anybody seen or heard from Kal Penn lately?

    elissa (a394d7)

  516. i may have keyed his car awhile back

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  517. Comment by nk — 11/9/2012 @ 4:29 pm

    Yes we did. That Shawarma is what I know as “real gyros” from college. Two places, almost across the street from one another back in the day. I know of one place to get them in Philly (if still there, years ago).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  518. If that’s the woman, narciso, I’ll excuse Petraeus for just a lapse of taste.

    nk (875f57)

  519. Yeah narciso–in that interview it’s pretty obvious she was smitten and it’s not surprising to find out there could have been something going on to make her so giggly and glow-y..

    elissa (a394d7)

  520. That’s what can happen when there’s running and lots of physical fitness being practiced far from home.

    elissa (a394d7)

  521. david and paula sittin in a tree
    just a workin on a chapter on benghazi

    happyfeet (6a0438)

  522. Seriously, anything that “compromises” i.e. makes a person subject to blackmail or other coercion, should be discovered upon hiring and continued to be looked out for after hiring. This is disturbing.

    nk (875f57)

  523. The idea that GOP candidates have been too “extreme” is such utter bullshit that its starting to piss me off.

    McCain and Romney were very moderate GOP candidates. And George W. Bush? How “extreme” could he be when there are no practical differences between his policies and Obama’s on most issues.

    Taxation? Obama continued the Bush era tax rates for his whole administration with little change other than estate tax rates – and those were similar to what prevailed for all but the last year of the Bush administration.

    Fiscal policy? Obama has been more fiscally irresponsible.

    Foreign policy? Obama largely continued all of Bush’s foreign policies but for a more aggressive policy against Pakistan (Bush never conducted military operations on the territory of an ally without permission). And now we find out that Obama is planning to invade Mali to chase Al Queda.

    Health care policy? Who knows, Obama sure didn’t want to brag about it during the campaign – since its unpopular by at least a plurality if not majority.

    Obama has shown that George W. Bush wasn’t “extreme”, that’s for sure.

    SPQR (768505)

  524. She is a graduate of West Point, is married to a radiologist and has two young children from what I read.

    elissa (a394d7)

  525. Supposedly she is under investigation by the FBI for attempting to access the General’s official e-mail which I assume would have classified stuff in it which she’s not supposed to be looking at.

    elissa (a394d7)

  526. I mean the morons responsible for the CIA Director’s security clearance.

    nk (875f57)

  527. That’s the larger issue, didn’t Rodriguez who’s now being slotted for AfriCom, know about this,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  528. A clean version of a crude Greek island saying: A petticoat can sink a ship.

    nk (875f57)

  529. This is nothing more than a resume enhancer for a bigger job. President Betrayus.

    mg (31009b)

  530. It doesn’t really matter, I guess. It’s not Ithaca (the destination), it’s the Odyssey (the journey). But what a way for Petraeus to end his career. Pitiful.

    nk (875f57)

  531. 168. Steve57, I don’t follow. How does the state of New York recognizing my marriage mean that the first amendment is a nullity?

    Comment by aphrael — 11/8/2012 @ 8:11 am

    Perhaps I am making myself misunderstood. I was attempting to say that if an imperial judiciary appoints itself the arbiter of all that is moral and just I decline to abide by its decisions.

    On the other hand if as you suggest my fellow citizens vote on something and I lose, well then, I’ll live with it a lot easier.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  532. Also, if I have to say that a form of marriage I don’t believe is a marriage is a marriage, then I don’t see how the First Amendment can still be said to apply.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  533. 297.If we’re f*cked, it’s not the fault of one man or even one group. It’s the fault of our entire system of government or one of the premises underlying it.

    Comment by Leviticus — 11/8/2012 @ 5:28 pm

    Leviticus, this is one of those times where you and me are in complete agreement.

    Obama is not the problem.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  534. 296.This idea that there was something especially important at stake in this election continues to puzzle me. Obama is a lot of things; an outlier is not one of them.

    Comment by Leviticus — 11/8/2012 @ 5:25 pm

    I beg to differ. There was something especially important at stake in this election.

    If I’m wrong I’m sure Ambassador Chris Stevens will point it out.

    No, wait, he’s not available. It seems my point stands.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  535. On Twitter this morning, someone uncovered an astonishing letter written to the New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist column and published on July 13, 2012. Here’s the letter.

    My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/10/a-strange-twist-in-the-petraeus-story/

    Colonel Haiku (8d61ec)

  536. 541.On Twitter this morning….

    Coronello, I don’t believe u. That exceeds the 140 character limit on Twitter.

    Steve57 (7a880e)

  537. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person” – compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

    If one looks at history, one should not be surprised at the support Hispanics give to the Democrats, and the reasons for doing so.

    During the wave of immigration in the latter half of the 19th century, Democrats appealed to them, providing patronage and assisting them with naturalization. New York’s Tammany Hall was an (in)famous example.

    Hispanic immigrants, quite understandably, chose to live in large cities, just as previous waves of immigrants have done. And just as they did before, local Democratic political machines used patronage to curry their favor.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6909 secs.