Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I was hoping maybe he'd explain why he ran at all given that he obviously wasn't *that* invested in winning.
Cheap shot, dear, especially since you were so gung ho for him.I thought the part about keeping the faith and listening to the governors was good advice.PS Keep in mind, there were a lot of Libertarians and some sorehead "Conservatives" that were more interested in him not winning than seeing Choom lose.
I invested a lot of time in trying to help Romney win. It's the first time I ever volunteered for a campaign. I'll never do it again. I don't think he believed in the same things many of the volunteers believed in - limited government, etc.
He thanked people who helped his campaign and took the blame for the loss. Maybe not interesting, but pretty unusual.
Funny, but he seemed interested enough in winning in the debates and just about everybody seemed to think so.When they say defeat is an orphan, perhaps it explains why the word bastard ought to be conferred on the father rather than the child.
We'll regret him not winning. Not conservatives, the country. He's a decent man and I still respect him as a person immensely.Not as damaging as Coolidge not running in 1928 --- but 2012 was a pretty bad election with the worst possible winner.
He should run again in 2016. Third time's the charm.
He was the last best chance for this country to avoid the coming abyss. Obama isn't interested and the Democrats don't see it. When it becomes obvious, it will be too late.My daughter and her husband want to buy a house and want some help from me. What could I say ? They voted for Obama and are oblivious. I wish them well and, of course, I will help them all I can. I don't talk about what I see coming. If we have a runaway inflation, a house with a fixed interest mortgage may be their best option.I feel so bad for my kids and grandkids but don't say that. It feels like France in 1940.
somefeller said...He should run again in 2016. Third time's the charm.As usual, some phony folksy's attempt at wit is only an attempt.I seem to have trouble recalling him being nominated twice.
Governor Romney said plenty about the country and himself. It's a long road to 2016, but I think we can make it and turn things around. I agree with "somefeller's" comment that the "Third time's the charm."
Did he talk about getting blown out?
He was the last best chance for this country to avoid the coming abyss.He was the equivalent of speeding towards the abyss at 65 mph instead of 70mph.
He wasn't interested enough in winning the debates to to go for Obama's throat over Benghazi when he had the chance. He played too nice, much nicer than he did with his primary opponents.
Romney won independent voters in all the battleground states by double digits. That is a fact. It was the 4 million preening anal retentive so called Conservative Republicans who stayed home and didn't vote who gave President Obama a second term.
edutcher says, while staring vacantly at the wall:I seem to have trouble recalling him being nominated twice.You have trouble recalling lots of things. Romney ran for President in 2008 and 2012 and didn't link my line to nomination by the GOP. Thus the reference to the third time. But thank you for playing.
Atta boy, somefeller!
"It was the 4 million preening anal retentive so called Conservative Republicans who stayed home and didn't vote who gave President Obama a second term."===============I will never understand until the day I die, and I never saw it coming. Had NO IDEA that our guys were going to sit it out.But I guess "the Stupid Party" doesn't just apply to the establishment.
Thank you, Fandor.
Funny, but he seemed interested enough in winning in the debates and just about everybody seemed to think so.Listening to Rush today, etc. Romney's ultimate problem was not with the center, but with the right. He figured that if he won the independents, he would win. But, not if he lost 4 million McCain voters, which is what he did, while winning the center comfortably. Too much of the conservative base stayed home, and that cost him the election.His advisors apparently told him to play safe after winning the first debate, and so he didn't go for the kill with Benghazi. If he had, we might have had a different President now, and not facing a lame duck far left ideologue in the White House instead, who is using his power as the Executive to ram as much of his agenda through as he can, including seriously jepardizing any thoughts of energy independence in the near future. But, playing it safe cost conservative votes. A lot of them.
machine said...Did he talk about getting blown out?Since he wasn't, no need.Fandor said...Romney won independent voters in all the battleground states by double digits. That is a fact. It was the 4 million preening anal retentive so called Conservative Republicans who stayed home and didn't vote who gave President Obama a second term.I thought those were the 4 million million preening anal retentive so called Liberal Democrats who stayed home and didn't vote, requiring Axelord and company to steal the election.somefeller said...I seem to have trouble recalling him being nominated twice.You have trouble recalling lots of things. Romney ran for President in 2008 and 2012 and didn't link my line to nomination by the GOP. Thus the reference to the third time. But thank you for playing.Spare me the weaseling, not to mention channeling your disgraced sockpuppet shilol. You wanted to give the impression he'd failed at being elected POTUS twice.But then, we're still waiting for you to tell Erika how having more than 2 kids is some indicator of lack of intellectual acuity.Come on, we know you have the data.Don't you?You can also tell us how brilliant Barry was the other day telling us there is no debt crisis.You can then tell us how the Ides of March is a holiday, and so justifying your lurking here from the early afternoon.
He played too nice, much nicer than he did with his primary opponents.He was playing nice because that is what his advisors told him to do. They didn't want to scare away the independents with too much fire breathing conservatism. Rather, with an apparent lead, he was told to play safe.
Governor Romney was the best prepared and articulate candidate the Republicans had run in 20 years. He was into this race, heart and soul to WIN, which was obvious to anyone who watched the endless Republican debates throughout 2011-2012. Perhaps Mr. Romney didn't "go for Obama's throat" as "Kensington" stated, but I don't recall Ronald Reagan going for Jimmy Carter or Fritz Mondale's throat in any of his debates. And isn't President Reagan "the gold standard" of what a conservative Republican is suppose to be? How novel that a candidate can be a gentleman and debate the issues instead of repeating tiresome bromides that appeal to low information voters.
Tell me Bruce Hayden, what were conservative Republicans doing when they didn't vote? What was the alternative they chose by not exercising their privilege to vote? Voting is an action. There was absolutely no action on the part of the ones who stayed home. Shame on them and woe for us all.
edutcher demands:You can then tell us how the Ides of March is a holiday, and so justifying your lurking here from the early afternoon.Thanks for the attention to my schedule. It's the last day of Spring Break, so I took a vacation day and hung out poolside with the kid and took a little Althouse break with the iPhone. Multitasking. I know it's been a long time since you've been employed, but vacation days are days that employed people take off from work. But otherwise, cool rant, bro.
I think that maybe the reason that the best prepared candidate of the last 20 years could lose this way, is that he assumed that he would get the conservative vote, and they stayed home because he didn't work for it. Reagan probably never had this problem, because the conservative always knew that he was their guy. Not so with Romney, esp. after his record of being governor of MA. While he may have run as one of the conservatives in 2008, by 2012, he was running to the left of many of those Republicans running. Or, at least appeared to be to the left. He wasn't the conservatives' guy, and never really tried to sell them, likely worried that any such sales job would alienate the middle. So, he got the middle, and lost on the right with so many conservatives sitting out the election.
I don't know where all those conservatives were this last election, but staying home cost Romney, and a lot of Senate candidates, the election. Yes, sitting out the election is an action, and I couldn't justify it. I voted, and tried to convince anyone who would listen that this was one of the most important elections in years. To no avail - my state went for Obama, etc. and the only vote I made that won was for legalized pot.
somefeller said...You can then tell us how the Ides of March is a holiday, and so justifying your lurking here from the early afternoon.Thanks for the attention to my schedule. It's the last day of Spring Break, so I took a vacation day and hung out poolside with the kid and took a little Althouse break with the iPhone. Multitasking. I know it's been a long time since you've been employed, but vacation days are days that employed people take off from work.Sure, everybody spends their vacation days hanging out on the comment boards at Althouse.PS You still haven't told us how you know people with more than a couple of kids are intellectually wanting.PPS I know you realize how obnoxious and unliked you are, but, if you had to invent your own cheering section, you could have come up with a more subtle name than Fandor.
and the only vote I made that won was for legalized pot.Good man.
The Republican party is too top down in structure, and that's why 4 million stayed home. Of course, the Democrats want a top down government, which according to the Republicans, is not a good thing.
I can't speak for all the people who refrained from voting for Romney. I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian. I have generally viewed Republican Presidential candidates as preferable to Democratic ones, and think Romney would have been better than Obama, albeit not by much.But.For every Presidential election of my adult lifetime, small-government types like me have been listening to you Republicans say "oh, sure, we nominated yet another big-government social-conservative asshole THIS time, but it is vital that you vote for him because Democrats are scary. We swear we'll do better, just, you know... not now". You did it in '92, in '96, in '00, in '04, in '08, and again in 2012. So to everyone in the Republican Party bemoaning the lack of support for Romney: fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. You assholes lied to us for twenty fucking years. You spent twenty years conning us into helping you make make the country a worse place and you want to blame US for the mess we're in now? If you want to find someone to blame why don't you look in a fucking mirror.I'm voting third party until either a viable replacement for the Republican Party comes along or you retards get your shit together and and start being something more appealing than "the Party for Democrats Who Hate Fags".And with that off my chest, I shall return to my normal snarky but basically amiable self. :)
JHapp said...The Republican party is too top down in structure, and that's why 4 million stayed home. Of course, the Democrats want a top down government, which according to the Republicans, is not a good thing.Again, it was Choom who lost 4 mil in '12.Although I can see how he keeps snowing the gullible.
edutcher...I am not "somefeller"...I am Fandor, not a "cheering section" for another commentor. If I liked what someone else said, and you didn't, that's fine. And I do appreciate your view on the subject being discussed.But please remember, I am Fandor, not "some (other) feller."
Romney lost because the Reagan Democrats stayed home. It wasn't "conservative Republicans". Romney didn't give white poor and working class voters any reason to support him. If your only real difference with the Democrats is you want to cut Social security more and tax the rich less, you're going to lose.Maybe the Republicans should consider nominating someone who isn't a establishment/DC insider and under the age o 60. They've run Ford, Dole, Bush (88 & 92), McCain, and Romney. That's 1-5.
rcocean said...Romney lost because the Reagan Democrats stayed home. It wasn't "conservative Republicans". Romney didn't give white poor and working class voters any reason to support him. If your only real difference with the Democrats is you want to cut Social security more and tax the rich less, you're going to lose.Uh huh, then explain, por favor, how they came out to see him by the thousands in states like PA, while Choom couldn't fill a high school gym.
Any Bush only got elected by lying. He was really a Ford Moderate but pretended to be Reagan Part II.
In '92 Bush dropped the pretense and ran as the REAL George Bush. That's why he ended up with 35% - despite winning the war in Kuwait.
Yeah that's right Ed, how did McGovern ever lose? I mean every Liberal and Nixon hater voted for him and showed up at his rallies. Its a puzzler all right.
Gad, it's thick in here tonight.Ann, tell Meade to open up the stained glass windows.
Fandor wrote:Tell me Bruce Hayden, what were conservative Republicans doing when they didn't vote? What was the alternative they chose by not exercising their privilege to vote? Voting is an action. There was absolutely no action on the part of the ones who stayed home. Shame on them and woe for us all. Gary Johnson?I know a lot of conservatives an libertarians who talked for four years, many on these boards about the evils of Obama.Yet, when push came to shove either voted for someone who had no chance to win or didnt vote at all.Total idiots.
...conservatives stayed home....allowing the devil that is Obama to crush...riiiiiigggggghhhhhhttttt.....This is truly a fantasy land....
Revenant wrote:So to everyone in the Republican Party bemoaning the lack of support for Romney: fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. You assholes lied to us for twenty fucking years. You spent twenty years conning us into helping you make make the country a worse place and you want to blame US for the mess we're in now? If you want to find someone to blame why don't you look in a fucking mirror. no fuck you. Even you acknowledge that Romney would have been better than Obama. And only a true idiot would argue that they are essentially the same, which is what most libertarians did. When push came to shove many libertarians voted forBiggest govt by pretending that their choice was not between Obama Romney but Obama and perfect candidate. That wasnt your choice. Yet rather then dealing with reality a good chunk went off tilting at windmills. Fuck them forever. We don't blame libertarians for the mess were in now. We're blamin those who didnt vote for the best candidate in continuing that which you say is the mess we're in. You could have turned tr tide, but I stead voted for a nobody. Please stop complaining.Oh, and you want to fault repubs for floating horrible candidates for 20 years. What about libertarians? Why is my choice Ron paul types who make Lyndon Larouche seem normal?
This is the view of many libertarians:http://www.examiner.com/article/libertarians-to-republicans-get-over-yourselves-1They honestly think that the wave of the future is libertarianism as a third party. Not only find they get their smaller govtPassed, ther candidate did nothing but spoil elections for people who could actually win and who espouse small govt principles. So it's a double loss.My personal belief is that libertarians know they will never win or that they can solve problems and are deathly afraid of trying. So rather than vote for people who might give them what they want they sabotage people who could win so that they can maintain their message rather than actively try to lead.I will never give money to any libertarian going forward until they learn that if they can't see the forest forThe trees they aren't worth having as allies. Fuck them. Fuck Ron Paul. Fuck Gary Johnson and any other douchey loser they decide to bring forth as their savior. Crawl back under a rock and concentrate on your ayn rand newsletters. Leave politics to serious people.
If he could, or would say interesting things he'd be president now.
Mitt Romney was prepared to take on our national dilemma by the horns; the economy, Obama care and our declining world stature, and revive "the dream" for ALL Americans. That would have required building serious working coalitions across the aisle, that circumvented hard core types (like Obama, Reid, Durban, et al) and, of course, Conservatives and Libratarians wearing blinders and as stubborn as a summer day is long. The last president to really bring together like minded Americans was Ronald Reagan. President Obama and his allies are totally incapable of this. It will not happen over the remainder of his (Obama's) term.Mitt Romney had (and has) the experience to analyze, build and renew our country. His administration may not have been the ideal one for so many dispirited factions, but it would have served the United States of America well and promoted the proposition that all citizens are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That opportunity has been denied by the electorate. One thing is for certain, wherever we are headed, we're going together, like it or not.Thank you, Ann and all who commented during this lively discussion.
Reading these comments, I'm beginning to wonder if a republican party will still exist in 2024.
Republicans have to win without libertarians. Fuck libertarians. That doesn't mean that republicans shouldn't espouse libertarian principles. But they should not count on Libertarian support, nor should they court it. Let Libertarians wander in the wilderness forever where they belong. Toe the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian. Libertarians are leftist s with overlaps on the economy. Yet, when push comes to shove, would rather push principle than actually get the economy in line. Fuck them with an aids infected penis.
That is directed, by the way to Libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson. If they never vote for republican anyway, then who cares. But if they would, but used this time to vote principle then frankly their principles are stupid, and they don't really believe the principle. Because voting for Gary Johnson will not deliver that result. But letting Obama win will give you more govt than you would ever dream of. Even if the argument is that Romney would drive us over the cliff at 65 MPH versus 75MPH under Obama, if you don't recognize the difference then you are a stupid idiot. So its a wasted vote and you are a moron for voting that way.Please stop with the smaller govt arguments. You're not supporting those that would and could potentially bring that. You're just whining like little bitches.
But letting Obama win will give you more govt than you would ever dream of. Nobody "let" Obama win. Obama was going to win no matter what republicans, conservatives or libertarians did.
It wasnt as much a blowout as deacribed . It boiled down to a few states where it was the difference of a few thousand. I don't state that if all libertarians voted for Romney that he would have won. He might have though. He would have lost the popular vote but by a few million less. And in those individual states he might have woman few more contests.The point though is not even the win it loss.Libertarians didnt know the outcome of the election any more than anyone else. Yet if you look at where voters didnt turn out for the conservative candidate it wasnt the evangelicals who supposedly would never vote for a Mormon that let down our side. It was the libertarians. It wasnt the swing voters. It was the libertarians. What is the one thing that binds libertarians and republicans? The economy. What is the primary issue facing the US? The economy. IfMitt Romney didnt win what would be the outcome? The continuation of the biggest expansion of govt we've ever had. Why some libertarians felt this was the moment to vote for some dude who most people never even heard of just shows that they are dealing with a different reality.They could have held their nosesAnd voted for the imperfect candidate who would not grow govt to he same degree as the Obama. But they didnt.Those 3 million Gary Johnson voters (or whatever the number) can go die. They are officially dead to me and I hope they in particular face financial hardship due to big govt policies. Even if their vote total wasnt enough to bring Romney a victory, at least they would have it on record that they tried. But no, shrinking govt is not as important as adhering to principle, which I thought was shrinking govt. so they're not really even voting for shrinking govt.Cutting off your nose to spite your face makes you look really stupid without a nose. What did they get for their vote? Smaller govt? But keep sticking to that principle while govt grows and grows.Even liberals who voted for Nader learned their lesson when it cost the better candidate for them who may not have been as perfect as Nader but who was a hell of a lot better than George Bush to lose. And they didnt vote for him again when he ran next time.So the moral is libertarians are even more stupid than liberals. And based on some libertarians arguments they are going to wear their stupidity likeA badge of honor.
Post a Comment